level. It would be possible to make this lock long enough to shut all the gates and still have 900 feet between them. There are some objections to that, but that is a possibility. The objections are that you want about the same cubic volume of water in one lock as in the other; and if you increase the length of this lock above that of the others, you ought to decrease the lift. That can be done and make the volume the same, with a greater length and less lift; but that has the objection that your gates are different. It is an advantage to have the gates all duplicates of each other. They sometimes get out of order, and it is a desirable thing to have them all duplicates; and it strikes me that this is the best arrangement they could make. But it is not so that they can not put a 900-foot boat through there with perfect safety--I mean, having two gates always to protect the summit level. Senator DRYDEN. Do you know of any reason why, if it is thought necessary to make these locks longer, there should be any mechanical or structural difficulty about doing it?

Colonel ERNST. None in the world; none in the world. It is the easiest way to enlarge a lock that there is, to increase the length of the wall.

Senator DRYDEN. Could they be made longer with just as much safety as the length originally suggested?

Colonel ERNST. Absolutely; certainly.

Senator DRYDEN. And in facility of operation they could be operated as easily, could they?

Colonel ERNST. Yes, sir; just as easily.

Does any gentleman want any further explanation on that point? The CHAIRMAN. Have you a statement there that you wish to read to the committee?

Colonel ERNST. No; I have no written statement, but there is another point in the evidence that I would like to allude to.

Senator DRYDEN. Before you pass to that, Colonel, it has been stated here that there is danger of these locks being smashed down and destroyed by the weight and operation of the vessels passing through. I would like to have your opinion upon that matter.

Colonel ERNST. I do not think there is any more danger of that, Senator, than there is in coming up in this elevator that we come up in every day to this committee room. There are people in the world, plenty of them, who would be afraid to come up on that elevator, and the engineers who have had the greatest familiarity with locks are those who are the most perfectly satisfied of the perfect safety of making these new locks, these large locks.

I have watched the Soo Canal for a good many years. I had general supervision of that district of country before coming here, and I am just as satisfied that those locks can be built as I am of anything else in the world. I have no doubt about it at all.

Senator KITTREDGE. What is the maximum lift at the Soo?
Colonel ERNST. The lift is about 20 feet.

Senator KITTREDGE. One lock?

Colonel ERNST. One lock, 20 feet lift; yes.

Senator KITTREDGE. Do you think that condition at the Soo is to be compared with the condition at these Gatun locks?

Colonel ERNST. Oh, yes. It is on a smaller scale. Oh, I think we should take our lessons from the Soo. I rely very greatly on the experience at the Soo. It is the best experience there is.

PC-VOL 3-06—7

The navigation interests of the Great Lakes are enormous, the commerce is growing with marvelous rapidity. It is not afraid of those locks. They are clamoring now for deeper channels between the lakes. They want more than 21 feet, and when they get them they will want bigger locks; and they know that perfectly well. They are not afraid of them. The trade is growing enormously. Last year it beat all records.

Senator KITTREDGE. What was the tonnage capacity?

Colonel ERNST. About 45,000,000 tons went through the Soo canals, those three canals, of which this Poe lock takes much the greater part. Senator KNOX. How does that compare with the Suez Canal? Colonel ERNST. It is more than three times as much.

Senator KITTREDGE. In speaking about the tonnage passing through there, you mean through the British canal as well as ours?

Colonel ERNST. Yes. The British canal takes about 10 per cent. Senator KITTREDGE. How much went through ours?

Colonel ERNST. Ours takes 90 per cent of it.

Senator KITTREDGE. Figured in tons, how much was it?

Colonel ERNST. A little over 40,000,000 tons. Ten per cent of 45,000,000 would be four and a half. About 40,000,000 tons went through our locks.

I do not know but that it is proper to call attention to the continuation of Mr. Parsons's testimony the next day, having referred to his evidence, to which I have just replied. After that evidence that I have quoted before, this is what he says the next day:

"I am not attacking the ability to construct those locks at all. I want to have that distinctly understood. But, at the same time, if the locks are built, when they are built they will be unsafe for operation, in my opinion, as I explained yesterday. In other words-I lay stress not upon the inability to construct the locks or the inability to make those locks 1,000 feet long, if necessary-I believe that the ground is probably there to build the locks on and that the locks can be built a thousand feet long, if it is necessary, but that if that is done you will still have locks that are unsafe to operate, on account of the locks being in series of three."

So that he toned down a little the evidence he gave; but I thought it was desirable to explain to the committee that that minority report said exactly what they intended to say, and they furnished plans for locks that could pass a boat 900 feet in length.

Senator KITTREDGE. If it is a convenient time I would like to have your views upon the lock structure from a military standpoint.

Colonel ERNST. Senator, I do not believe in making that canal a subject of the operations of war at all. I agree entirely that it is easier to destroy a lock with a stick of dynamite than it is anything else upon the canal. the canal. But I believe that both canals are utterly vulnerable, and that the best defense we have is to make them neutral and to put our citizens in charge of them.

Senator KITTREDGE. Suppose the canal had been in operation in 1898, and we had wanted to put the Oregon through-would you have prevented that ship from passing through?

Colonel ERNST. Oh, no; my idea of neutrality is that all vessels, men-of-war and commercial vessels, will go through just the same as if there was not any war. I believe that is correct.

Senator KITTREDGE. Would you have been in favor of permitting the ships of Spain to pass through there?

Colonel ERNST. If she would take the risk; but I know very well. she would not. I know very well that no commander of a vessel would put his ship in that canal if the lock keepers, and the pilots, and everybody in charge of it were Americans, if his nation was at war with

America.

Senator KITTREDGE. What do you mean by putting the canal upon a neutrality, then?

Colonel ERNST. I mean to give everybody the free use of it if they are not afraid to use it; but what I think is this: That a foreign commander would be simply afraid to use it, no matter what our Government might promise. We have men down there of all kinds, and somebody would be bound to sink his vessel for him.

Senator KITTREDGE. Do you consider this canal, when constructed, useless from the military standpoint.

Colonel ERNST. Oh, no; not at all. I think our people would use it. We would have our citizens there; that is the difference. If it were a neutral canal, with French citizens or Spanish citizens in charge of it, then it would not be of any use to us; but having our citizens in charge of it I think we could use it with safety.

Senator TALIAFERRO. You mean you would advertise neutrality, but operate the canal in such a way that people that were at war with this country would not go into it? [Laughter.]

Colonel ERNST. Well, I simply take human nature as I find it. That is what I believe would be the result. I would advertise neutrality, and keep it, too, as far as I was able to do it; but I know very well Í could not do it. I know that even if we thought we could do it the foreigners would be suspicious of it and be afraid to use it. That is what I believe in the matter.

Senator MORGAN. Colonel, in this neutrality matter, if you were in command of a fleet or an army at Panama and the United States Government was at war with Great Britain or Germany, would you consider that under the laws of neutrality you were obliged to allow ships of war of Germany or of Great Britain to pass through that canal, knowing that they were going up to attack San Francisco, or the border up there?

Colonel ERNST. I suppose that is what neutrality would mean, would it not, Senator? You know much more about it than I do.

Senator MORGAN. I have not that view of it. I have always supposed that the nation that controls the channel, it not being a public, international channel, has the right to say, among nations that are belligerent with each other, but not belligerent with the United States, "You shall pass through here on equal terms; but when you open belligerency with the United States we will take our ground to fight you at the mouth of the canal, if it is necessary to do it."

Colonel ERNST. Yes-well, of course, I do not know how far the term "neutrality" would extend; but I think that no British commander would put his ship through there if our people had charge of the locks, if we were at war with Great Britain, no matter what we promised.

Senator MORGAN. And we would not put our ships there if we were at war with Panama, either; would we?

Colonel ERNST. No; I would not put my ship there, except in case of urgent necessity, if we were at war with anybody, no matter who it might be. I do not think that any captain would have his ship in there any longer than was absolutely necessary.

Shall I pass to the other point?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Colonel ERNST. On page 1496 Mr. Burr was testifying, and he makes this statement:

"In the work of the first Isthmian Canal Commission, where it was the duty of that Commission to determine the most practicable and feasible route for a ship canal, it was the unanimous opinion of that Commission that for its purposes a lock canal should be recommended, as it was recommended. That recommendation was largely for the tentative purpose of making a comparison between the Nicaragua and the Panama routes. In order to make a proper comparison, a comparison which might be considered fair and reasonable, it was necessary to make it upon the basis of a lock plan for each, because it would not be practicable or feasible in any sense of the word to construct a sea-level canal on the Nicaragua route."

On page 1498 I find the following:

"Senator MORGAN. In other words, you did not consider yourself committed by signing that report- joining in it-to the proposition that a sea-level canal at Panama was impracticable?

"Mr. BURR. Not necessarily. I felt and I am sure at least one other member of the Commission also felt-that our investigations were not sufficiently extended. It was not possible at that time to extend them sufficiently to settle that question finally.

"Senator KITTREDGE. Who was the other member of the Commission?

"Mr. BURR. I refer to Mr. Morison."

Now, Mr. Chairman, that point is of importance, because it raises the question of good faith-our national good faith. That Commission did adopt a plan. It said, in as plain language as I can conceive of, that it adopted it and recommended it. There was nothing tentative about it, and it proceeded to appraise the value of the French property on that basis. The French had taken out some 77,000,000 cubic yards of material. Under that plan a large part of that material was not of any value, and we allowed them, I think, for some 39,000,000 cubic yards.

Senator KITTREDGE. Which plan do you now refer to?

Colonel ERNST. The plan that was recommended by the Commission of 1901.

Senator KITTREDGE. You mean the Commission that was appointed in 1899 and made its report in 1901?

Colonel ERNST. Yes, sir; the Commission of 1899-1901.

Senator MORGAN. The Commission of exploration under Walker. Colonel ERNST. It was a commission appointed to report on all the routes. I was instrumental in getting up the report of that Commission, particularly the Panama chapter, and I worked in close alliance with Mr. Morison. He was with me in the work throughout. I know exactly what his views were; and here is a sentence which he wrote, ending up the paragraph discussing the sea-level plan. This is Mr. Morrison's own language:

"While such a plan would be physically practicable, and might be

adopted if no other solution were available, the difficulties of all kinds, and especially those of time and cost, would be so great that a canal with a summit level reached by locks is to be preferred.'

There is nothing tentative about that.

As I say, if it was tentative, it was only fair to let the French Company know it. But we did not do that, and we allowed them for 39,000,000 cubic yards of material.

Senator KNOx. I do not just get your point as to where the good faith of the Government was involved.

Colonel ERNST. The French had expended a very large amount of money on the Isthmus, and they valued their property at a very large sum of money.

Senator MORGAN. They had spent $260,000,000, had they not? Colonel ERNST. Yes, sir; that was in hard cash that got into their treasury.

Senator MORGAN. And they got it almost two-fifths done?

Colonel ERNST. Well, yes, roughly; under some plans, you may say it was two-fifths done.

Senator KNOx. Just finish that answer where you were speaking about the good faith.

Colonel ERNST. They had estimated that they Lad removed 77,000,000 yards of material. We rejected all of that except what was useful under this plan.

Senator KNOX. Why did you reject it?

Colonel ERNST. Because it was not of any value to us. We expected to build the canal under that plan, and we thought it was fair to pay them for such of their work as would be useful under that plan. Senator KNOx. Under what plan?

Colonel ERNST. The plan of 1901-the Commission of 1899-1901. Senator KNOX. Being a lock scheme?

Colonel ERNST. Yes, sir.

Senator MORGAN. With a dam at Bohio; and what was the elevation? Colonel ERNST. Eighty-five feet.

Senator MORGAN. Eighty-five feet, and a dam at Bohio?

Colonel ERNST. The same as this elevation, but with a dam at Bohio instead of Gatun. I am merely raising the point that that was not a tentative plan.

Senator KNOx. Then your point about "good faith" is that they would have been entitled to compensation for the full amount of the excavation had we contemplated building a sea-level canal which wou'd have made that excavation useful?

Colonel ERNST. Yes; perhaps not the full amount, but a very much larger amount.

Senator KNOX. Yes.

Colonel ERNST. Instead of 39,000,000 perhaps they would have been entitled to some seventy-odd million.

Senator KNOX. Do you think that that in anyway estops us from building any sort of a canal we see fit to build?

Colonel ERNST. Oh, no; I do not think that.

Senator KNOX. Then how is our good faith involved in the matter? Colonel ERNST. The good faith of that Commission is involved in having appraised a property at a certain value when it was worth a great deal more.