Legation of the United States of America,
San Jose, Costa Rica, Central America,
September 15, 1900.
Hon. George C. Perkins,
United States Senator,
San Francisco, California.
My Dear Sir:
Your valued favor of August 23d requests me to contestthe argument of a mutual friend entitled to ourpersonal esteem, in regard to the Nicaragua Canal, tothe construction of which he objects. The admissionmade by him that his argument is not made on very broadlines would indispose me to reply, as the Nicaragua Canalis a national undertaking, not to be considered from anarrow standpoint. But, confident that even his narrowpremises will not stand impartial investigation, Ishall contest his arguments first from his restricted platform,and subsequently in the brief manner necessitatedby the limits of this paper, on a broader and morepatriotic basis.
In examining his statement of navigable distances Inote some serious errors, consequently you will findherewith a statement thereof for which I can vouch asemanating from the United States Hydrographic office.During my Central American residence I have visitedvarious United States naval ships on this station andhave found one naval lieutenant opposed to the canal.[pg 2]On urging him to candidly state his reason for thisopposition, he at first stated that his reason was a personalone and like our friend's not made on very broad lines.He finally admitted that he opposed a canal because ifwe do not have one we shall need two navies, one oneach side of the Continent; more naval officers would benecessary and his promotion would ensue much morerapidly! Although at first surprised at this view of thecase I thanked him for his friendly candor, and repliedthat his argument as a personal one was on a sound basis,much more so than the railway magnates who oppose theCanal on the erroneous ground that their overland railwayswill be injured thereby when I challenge anyoneto cite an instance where any canal has not benefitedthe railways nearest thereto: notably the St. Mary's andErie Canals in our own country.
Our friend starts with the assumption that the canalis to be constructed for the purpose of making money. ThisI deny in toto. The United States Government willbuild a canal on a broader and more beneficent basis, forthe political and military safety of our country, for thedevelopment of its commerce and industries and to securea short cheap water route to and from our Pacific Oceanpossessions. The Suez Canal which cost ninety-fourmillions was built to make money and earns 17 to 20per cent. annually on a toll of about $1.85 per ton,whereas our Government should not charge over onedollar per ton when the Nicaragua Canal is opened andwhen its traffic increases, probably half a dollar per tonwill pay cost of maintenance and leave a small percentagefor a sinking fund.
Secondly, he states "the Canal will have no businesswhen first opened." Why not? Will freight continueto prefer ten thousand miles greater distance aroundCape Horn or higher Panama Railway Route and overlandrailway charges? The business of the Canal willcome from new interests which it will develop and fromother routes which cannot compete with it in rates.Third. He asserts that it will cost no less than[pg 3]$150,000,000.00. How much the Canal will cost dependsupon its capacity and