cost of either Nicaragua Canal or the Ship Railway, it would be
economical to abandon the Panama Canal, and the money sunk in it, to
date, unless its location and form possess paramount advantages; and we
therefore may profitably consider the relative merits of the three lines
without regard to the past, from four standpoints, viz.:

1. Geographical convenience of location.

2. Adaptiveness to all marine requirements, present and future.

3. Political security.

4. Economy of construction and operation.

He then discussed the comparative claims to excellence. In the first
consideration, after classifying the several grand divisions of future
ocean traffic, and noting especially the needs of the United States, he
claimed that while there was little to choose, in this respect, between
Nicaragua and Tehuantepec, either was far superior to Panama.

In the second particular he maintained that owing to the characteristics
of the Panama Canal and the practical impossibility of enlarging it
hereafter, excepting at stupendous cost, it could not serve the purposes
of the future, although it might, if completed, supply present need. He
praised the ingenuity of the plans for the Ship Railway, but emphasized
the fact that it will be the _movement of the traffic_, not merely the
lifting and supporting of ships in transit, that will test the system,
and suggested that even the beautiful application of mechanical force
which had been contrived might be powerless to insure the high grade of
service which is an absolute necessity. In this connection the general