It appears that the canal proposed by the minority of the board of consulting engineers can be built in half the time and at a little more than half the cost of the canal proposed by the majority of the board, and that when completed it will be a better canal, for the following reasons:
1. It provides greater safety for ships and less danger of interruption to traffic by reason of its wider and deeper channels.
2. It provides quicker passage across the isthmus for large ships or a large traffic.
3. It is in much less danger of damage to itself or of delays to ships from the flood-waters of the Chagres and other streams.
4. Its cost of operation and maintenance, including fixed charges, will be less by some $2,000,000 or more per annum.
5. It can be enlarged hereafter much more easily and cheaply than can a sea-level canal.
6. Its military defence can be effected with as little or perhaps less difficulty than the sea-level canal.
7. It is our opinion that the plan proposed by the minority of the board of consulting engineers is a most satisfactory solution of an isthmian canal, and therefore we recommend that the plan of the minority be adopted.
In February 1906 the president referred the question for final decision to Congress. In his message on the subject he spoke thus:—
It must be borne in mind that there is no question of building what has been picturesquely termed "the Straits of Panama"—that is, a waterway through which the largest vessels could go with safety at uninterrupted high speed. Both the sea-level canal and the proposed lock canal would be too narrow and shallow to be called with any truthfulness a strait, or to have any of the properties of a wide, deep water strip. Both of them would be canals, pure and simple. Each type has certain disadvantages and certain advantages. But, in my judgment, the disadvantages are fewer and the advantages very much greater in the case of a lock canal substantially as proposed in the papers forwarded herewith; and a careful study of the reports seems to establish a strong probability that the following are the facts: The sea-level canal would be slightly less exposed to damage in the event of war; the running expenses, apart from the heavy cost of interest on the amount employed to build it, would be less; and for small ships the time of transit would probably be less. On the other hand, the lock canal, at a level of 80 feet or thereabouts, would not cost much more than half as much to build, and could be built in about half the time, while there would be very much less risk connected with building it, and for large ships the transit would be quicker; while, taking into account the interest on the amount saved in building, the actual cost of maintenance would be less. After being built, it would be easier to enlarge the lock canal than the sea-level canal.