Concerning the actual difficulties of construction at Nicaragua, little need be said inasmuch as no work is now contemplated there. The San Juan dam of the Nicaragua and the Gatun dam of the Panama route both present conditions which have never been met before. Also the deep cuts of the Culebra find their counterpart in portions of the longer route.
The time-saving element is of more apparent than real importance because the time lost on the longer sea-voyage for the Panama route would be practically balanced by the gain of time in actual passage through the canal, the Nicaragua route being about four times as long as the Panama route. Henry L. Abbot, in his “Problems of the Panama Canal”, estimates that 34 hours more time would be required for passage by way of the Nicaragua than by way of the Panama route.
An excellent reason for the adoption of the Panama rather than the Nicaragua route was the existence of a good railroad and the fact that the French had actually completed about two fifths of the work required.
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON
Below is given a summary of the comparisons which have just been discussed.
| Panama Route | Nicaragua Route |
| There are two good harbors. | There are no good harbors. |
| There is a good railroad. | There is a very poor railroad. |
| Two-fifths of the work is completed. | No work is completed. |
| The projected construction, according to the majority of engineers, is justified by good engineering practice. | A dam without precedent in canal work is projected. |
| Except at Bohio, the annual rainfall nowhere exceeds 93 inches. | The most difficult works are where the rainfall is nearly 256 inches. |
| The length is 50 miles. | The length is 176 miles. |
| There are no active volcanoes. | There is one active volcano near the route. |
| The time of transit is 14 hours. | The time of transit is 44 hours. |
| The curvature is comparatively gentle. | The curvature is sharp. |
| No troublesome winds and cross-currents are expected. | Heavy trade winds and strong currents would be troublesome. |
III. HISTORY OF THE PANAMA ROUTE
The Panama route as a line of transit was first established between the years 1517 and 1520. The first settlement on the site of old Panama, six or seven miles east of the present city, was made in 1517. The Atlantic end, called Nombre de Dios, was built in 1519. Here Balboa was tried and executed. It grew rapidly in importance and in 1521 became a city by royal decree.
Even at that early date a road was established across the Isthmus. It, however, did not enter the city of Panama, but at the Pacific end passed through a small town called Cruces on the Chagres river about 17 miles distant, and at the Atlantic end passed through Nombre de Dios. The latter terminus did not prove satisfactory so the town of Porto Bello was made the Atlantic Port in 1597. This also was subsequently abandoned. At least part of this road was paved, and bridges were built over the streams. Even today its course is well defined.