Chapter XII: Economic Importance

The economic importance of the Panama Canal is a fruitful topic for discussion. Some authorities think that a large share of the world’s commerce will naturally and immediately use this new path between the oceans; but the general opinion of those best fitted to decide is that the canal will not be a paying investment, at least for the first years of its operation. As a German paper puts it, “Nobody thinks of remunerativeness any more. The fruits of the enterprise consist in indirect profits; they must be looked for in the military-political field and in the promotion of American commerce. In this lies the center of gravity of the situation”.

From a commercial standpoint the canal will be of little or no advantage to Europe for the way to the whole of eastern Asia and Australia, inclusive of New Zealand via the Suez Canal will remain much nearer. For Europe, then, the only saving is in traffic with the west coast of America. In commerce with western South America England occupies first place, and is followed by Germany, the United States and France, in the order named. It is to be noted that vessels trading with the southern portion of the west coast of South America will prefer to go around Cape Horn rather than pay the tolls through the Panama Canal.

The greatest commercial advantage comes to the eastern ports of the United States, namely 9,531 nautical miles between New York and San Francisco, so that New York on this route gains 2,889 miles more, for example, than Hamburg, Germany. The main fact, however, is that this saving is so large on the route from New York to Eastern Asia and Australia that it changes the present disadvantage of New York into an advantage when compared with many European ports. From Hamburg to Hongkong, via Suez, the distance is 10,542 miles; from New York to Hongkong, via Suez, it is 11,655 miles. The Panama Canal will give nothing to Hamburg but a saving of 1,820 miles to New York so that the distance will be 707 miles less than from Hamburg. In routes to the more northern ports of eastern Asia, as well as to those of eastern Australia, the gain of New York is still greater. From Hamburg via Suez to Melbourne is 12,367 miles; from New York 12,500 miles. Via Panama, however, the distance from New York is only 10,427 miles, so that New York will be about 2,000 miles nearer than Hamburg. In many cases therefore the Panama Canal will give New York a decided advantage over European ports.

There are other than commercial reasons for building the canal. The effect which it will have upon the tropical districts of the west is worth considering. An author on “Social Evolution” in describing this region said that there are only two words which adequately represent the conditions of this country, “anarchy and bankruptcy”, and he suggests removing the anarchy by the substitution of strong and righteous government. Can any one doubt that the construction of an international waterway through the Isthmus will tend to improve administration in the American tropics?

GENERAL MAP
OF THE
CANAL ZONE
AND THE
PANAMA CANAL
]

Transcriber’s Notes

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

The original text was typed, not printed. Consequently, there were more typographical errors than would normally be found in a book, and Transcribers corrected most of them without noting the individual corrections here.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.

Transcriber segmented the map at the end of the book into three larger parts for readability, in addition to retaining an image of the original.

“Maratime” was printed that way, twice; “Maritime” did not occur in this book.

Page 3: “concensus” was printed that way.

Page 15: “built on the lock canal” was printed as “built on the sea-level canal”, but “sea-level” was crossed out by hand and replaced by what appears to be “Loc”. Given the context and name of the chapter, Transcribers decided it was intended to be “lock”.