perienced by commerce being for 1866, $50,000,000, would be for 1876, $100,000,000; and for 1886, $200,000,000. According to this computation, the annual loss to commerce at present is equivalent to the cost of the Panama Canal as estimated by the Paris Congress. Every year, if we may assume the above data, money enough is wasted because we do not have a canal to build one! Such a calculation is, however, in excess of the truth. The computation of Levasseur, the one adopted by the Paris Congress, that sixteen years would be required to double the tonnage, is more moderate and much more reliable. According to this, if the loss in 1866 may be set down at $50,000,000, the loss in 1882 would be $100,000,000. It is quite possible that the truth lies between the estimates of Levasseur and Davis. Over a page of Mr. Bigelow's report is devoted to the estimates of a commercial journal of Paris, The "Revue-Gazette," and these exceed the estimates of Levasseur. Authorities differ but even estimates not among the highest show that some interoceanic route for ships is one of the greatest commercial needs of our times.
It seems almost superfluous to ask for the indorsement of names to an enterprise of such great utility; but, as the testimony of experts has weight with many minds, a few authorities of unquestioned competence may be cited. Among such may be reckoned Admiral Ammen. Appointed by General Grant one of a commission of three to report upon the interoceanic question, he was subsequently sent by our Government to represent it at the Congress of Paris. In his volume upon the interoceanic question, he observes that the result to be attained is "the grandest that man is capable of achieving for the amelioration of the commerce of the world."[1]
Not less significant is the opinion of the late W. W. Evans, an American engineer of distinction. Of Mr. Evans, Admiral Ammen remarks, in a recent publication, that his name is known all over the world. Mr. Evans wrote in 1879 that this canal matter was "the most important matter in the line of progress now before the world."[2] Such a statement may perhaps lead us to ask, Does not the ascription to the canal of such a preponderant influence connect itself with questions of international law? Admiral Davis, in his report, already cited, quotes from a writer, whose name he does not give, this statement, viz., that the cutting of the Isthmus would prove "the mightiest event probably in favor of the peaceful intercourse of nations which the physical circumstances of the globe present." Assuming that it is desirable that the peaceful intercourse of nations be promoted, another question naturally presents itself: Would it be promoted or not by the establishment and recognition in the cases of Suez and Panama of the neutrality of these works? This is not an occasion to discuss such a
