The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

charge there than at Gamboa; this was subsequently exploded by other obser- vations which showed that the first ones in error. Notwithstanding this, and"in spite of the many evidences' of the tightness of the earth covering, the possibility of a flow through the hills was advanced and was seized upon as another argument against the lock type." The board of consulting engineers es- timated the cost of the lock type of can- al at $139,705,200 and of the sea-level canal at $247,021,000. These sums were for construction purposes only and elim- inated sanitation, civil government and the purchase. price. Colonel Goethals ventured to say, however, that the lock type of canal would cost $300,000,000 and the sea-level type $477,601,000 for were construction only or $563,000,000 with sanitation and civil government costs added. Regard earthquakes, Col. Goethals says that none has occurred of any importance since the seventeenth century and that at any rate both lotk and sea-level types would suffer equally; nor does he regard a lock canal more vulnerable than a sea-level canal in time of war. Both are subject to at- tack by land or air. In concluding Col. Goethals says: "I. have endeavored to show that a channel of sufficient width, in which the - waters of the many streams, especially the Chagres, will not be a menace, is one most desired for an Isthmian canal. The sea-level canal proposed by the ma- jority of the board of consulting engi- neers is not of sufficient width, nor is the proposed solution for the impound- ing and diversion of the Chagres and other. streams based upon sufficient in- vestigations to insure its success. The "ideal" sea-level canal, the:: Straits .of Panama; recently proposed, is not based upon any investigations of the work to be done and can not, in view of the approximate estimate of the cost of our own sea-level canal, which is about one-third the size of the "ideal" plan, be given serious consideration. Every criticism against the stability of our locks or dams can be attributed to either an argument in favor of one's own plans or to absolute ignorance of the safety now in existence. The several other plans of lock-type canal have nothing in their favor that the plan now adopted does not possess to a greater degree. "I have endeavored also to show that the organization on the Isthmus is compact and complete in every way, performing its duties of construction, Sanitation, and government with © clock- Uke precision. I can not do better than quote from the message recently sent to the congress, 'that hereafter attack on exhaustive data concerning their | 'TAE. Marine REVIEW this type--the lock type--is in reality merely attack upon the policy of build- ing any canal at all', for the adoption of asea-level canal anywhere approach- ing the ease of navigation of the lock type will result in the 'ultimate aband- onment of the canal; and I assure you that several years: hence, no later than Janis 1,. 1919, even the most .ardeut sea level advocates will, in making the voyage through the oat admit that the ability to navigate a battleship at a high rate of speed through the lake and wide channel from Gatun to Pedro Miguel far outweighs the small in- conveniences of the safe lockages up to and down from the summit level." OIL-FUEL RESULTS. Except in the case of S$teaniers built for carrying oil in bulk, or those trading to or from of in tie. regien of, the oil-fields, it can scarcely be said that liquid fuel has made much headway in the merchant . service. It is true that the evaporative effi- ciency, weight for weight, is from 33. to 70 per: cent better than coal, according to the calorific value of. the latter, and. that the. reduction in bunker capacity and in weight of fuel carried enables more cargo to be taken, of a* Smaller ship'to'be built for a given duty, or a higher speed to be realized for the load carried. In the case of the high-speed Cunard- ers, ,for instance, there might have 21. bill. It has been difficult to get exact comparative data of the financial re- sults of burning oil and . coal, apart: from'. the calorific results. 'In the | "accompanying: table there. are! given | such comparative figures from three merchant ships in sérvice:-- There. is given a comparison of the expenses in three 'different: ships, the third a moderate-sized cargo carrier. Column 4 gives the consumption re- spectively in each ship for the same service, and it will be seen that the. oil is about 33 per cent less than the coal; in other words 2 tons of oil give the same energy at the propeller. The numiber of as' 3; tons. oF e6al, firemen (column 5) and the wages paid (column 6) in the smaller steam- ers when using oil fuel is less than one-fourth what they are when us- ing coal; but with increased size of ship and greater power of machin- - Thus" ery the gain is augmented. the owner of the cargo steamer using oil pays in wages only one-fifth of the sum disbursed when burning coal. Oil does ers, For very smal cost im Stear. pumping power it is automatically fed , into the boiler, which is not the case with coal. The relative repair and maintenance costs given in column 8 | are most significant; liquid fuel is a preservative of steel; as the boiler doors are never opened, as with coal- burning, there are no sudden varia- COMPARISON OF THE LABOR COST PER DAY OF BURNING COAL AND OIL IN THREE STEAMERS. . 2 : & oO, aS) 6 So fe ee & : oY wee a a S 3 ms 20 Eo bps * 3) Ou Oo 5 se ae fy AQ BD Ay SH Ts 2. Se 4. 5. 6. eis, 1 Coal Natural 22% i 1 9 Oil Do. 15 2 8 a Coal Forced 29% 14 Teal7 Oil To. tone 3 8 3 Coal Forced 300 -- 19 12 Oil Do. 200 12 20 been a possible reduction of be- tween 2,000 and 3,000 tons in. _dis- placement, and this would have in- creased greatly the speed for the same power, or reduced the power for the same speed. But with oil in this country selling at 60s., as compared with anything from 10s to 20s. per ton for coal, there is not much in- ducement to adopt the liquid-fuel sys- tem. Indeed, the' great cost. is car- rying weight with economists, even at the admiralty, notwithstanding the great strategical and tactical advan-_ tages of oil fuel already' well known. There are other gains, however, in the reduction of the cost of burn- ing the fuel--in the loading, trimming, and stoking of fuel, in the smaller. staff required, and in-the repairs, tc., ce oe Bo Sq ar . SE, oO x, aq a vv ances oe n np 5 23 2 § 5 ep OQ Do Se = -- 0 Begs a gie Bl eas oO wee me a Pips. a th, 9. 10, d. is. id: 2S.1G ee Sed: 8. di 4. OM 0 0-3 8 8 2 8 oe 0 09 0 0.0 8) are ee oe 4) 14.04.0100 8 Lae 6-0, 3, 0 70 10) 018 0 oe Oo 1209387 0 698500 a7 1 i ee 0 0. 18.20 0.7.6 Doo Oe ae tions in temperature as those which | affect junctions of tubes with tube-_ plates, and involve other troubles with coal-fired boilers: The het re-' sult is that. oil in a steamer using 200 tons per day costs 4d per ton to burn, against 2s 6d for coal. This does not include the the fuel or plant for separating wa- ter from the oil, compressing, air-spraying the' oil--Engineering, Lon- don. >): oe bY nies Samuel B. Macdonnell, statistican of the Board of Commissioners and Navigation, Philadelphia, reports: ar- rivals of 342 at Philadelphia. during February as against 305 for - 1908. This includes both foreleg and coast: wise. not need. to be trimmed not conveyed by men from distant bunk- first. cast. of and * pe it i He a