Is a Ship Canal Practicable? / Notes, Historical and Statistical, Upon the Projected Routes for an Interoceanic Ship Canal Between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, in Which is Included a Short Account of the Character and Influence of the Canal of Suez, and the Probable Effects Upon the Commerce of the World of the Two Canals, Regarded Either as Rivals, or as Parts of One System of Interoceanic Navigation

by S. T. Abert

I.	Coazacoalcos, Tehuantepec.
II.	B. Honduras to G. of Fonseca.
III.	R. San Juan, Nicaragua, Managua.
IV.	Port Limon to Caldera, Costa Rica.
V.	Chiriqui inlet to Golfo Dulce.
VI.	Aspinwall, Panama, (railroad finished.)
VII.	Gorgon B., Realijo		Nicaragua
VIII.	Gorgon B., San Juan del Sur.

Before describing the routes above enumerated, some criteria for assisting the judgment may be brought together, as follows:

1. The Isthmean Canal may be a thorough-cut, with guard-locks.

2. It should be without a tunnel.

3. It may have a summit-level and moderate lockage, to avoid excessive tunneling and cutting.

4. Great advantages in other respects—viz.: shortness of line and fine harbors—may compensate for a short tunnel.

5. The route should possess good harbors, or such as can be easily improved.

6. Dimension of the canal and size of the locks. The canal should be sufficiently wide to permit ships to pass easily, or it should have convenient turn-outs.

The width of the intermarine canal proposed by Mr. Kennish, to unite the Atrato and the Pacific, is estimated to have 200 feet. General Michler assumes a width of 100 feet, and states that vessels can pass alternately from one end to the other, employing tug-boats and telegraphic signals to avoid confusion.

The canal now in process of construction, under the direction of General Wilson, around the Des Moines rapids on the Mississippi, has a width of 250 feet in embankment.