years? We should lose our time." The Americans. made no reply, but ceased after this to take any further part in the discussions of either the Congress or its committees, it being their opinion, as expressed by Admiral Ammen before the Congress that "only able engineers can form an opinion, after careful study, of what is actually possible and what is relatively economical in the construction of a ship canal.” The committee had evidently ceased to care for any such expert opinion, and the self-respecting engineers of England, France, and the United States, in consequence, withdrew. Left to themselves the de Lesseps clique accepted the report of the sub-committee in favor of Wyse's project, and at once put a resolution through the committee adopting the Panama route. The vote on this preliminary question showed 20 in the affirmative, with 9 abstentions, and 26 absentees. It was next decided by 16 votes that the canal should be a tide-level one. Finally an inclusive resolution was introduced to the effect that: "the committee, standing on a technical point of view, is of the opinion that a canal such as would satisfy the requirements. of commerce is possible across the isthmus of Panama, and recommend especially a canal at the level of the sea." Amid great confusion and excitement among the rival French enthusiasts, this final resolution was ultimately carried by the de Lesseps party, the vote standing 16 to 3 with 11 abstentions and 7 absentees. Thus the deliberations of the Fourth Committee were brought to a stormy close, and by a seemingly large majority, the persistent de Lesseps carried his point for the Société Civile. On May 29th a full session of the Congress was convened to listen to and pass upon the report of the Fourth Committee. Few beyond de Lesseps's immediate friends and supporters Decision appeared, however, as the result was Congress already foreseen. The report of the com § 133. The Final of the in Favor of mittee was read and a vote taken without Panama. further discussion. Out of the 136 dele gates only 98 cast their votes. Of these 75 voted in the affirmative and only 8 in the negative. Sixteen abstained, and 37 were reported absent. The analysis of the vote showed that only 19 out of 75 affirmative votes were given by engineers, and 8 of these were to be attributed to the employees of the Suez Canal Company. Of the 19 experts again, only 5 were practical engineers, and only one, a young graduate and resident of Panama had ever been on the isthmus. There were originally 5 delegates of the French Society of Engineers, but of these 2 voted No, and the remaining 3 absented themselves from the session. The galleries were crowded with spectators, however, and great enthusiasm prevailed when the result of the vote was announced. De Lesseps was once more shown to be right, and he became, in consequence, more the favorite than ever. It only remained now for the International Scientific Congress to announce its decision to the world, and this it did at once by the unanimous adoption of the following resolution: "Le Congrès estime que le percement d'un canal interocéanique à niveau constant, si désirable dans l'intérêt du commerce et de la navigation, est possible, et que le canal maritime pour répondre aux facilités indispensables d'accès et d'utilisation qui doit offrir avant tout un passage de ce genre devra être dirigé du Golfe de Limon à la baie de Panama."1 1 Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, "Le Panama Canal," Économiste Français, August 8 and 15, 1885. 44 1879. Compte Rendu des Séances du Congres International, etc." Paris, "Interoceanic Canal Congress," Instructions to the United States Delegates and Reports of the Proceedings. Washington Govt. Print, 1879. North American Review, August, 1879. Rodrigues, loc. cit., Ch. IV. Sullivan, loc. cit., Ch. XI. S CHAPTER XVIII. THE PANAMA CANAL AND THE MONROE A $134. The United S soon as it became known in the United States that de Lesseps had lent his name and influence to the Panama project, appre hension seized hold of the minds of the American people. The idea of a foreign corporation building and controlling a transit-way across the American isthmus was in itself not at all States Op- agreeable to us, and rumor now had it that de Lesseps was negotiating for a Guaranty of coalition of the European powers to guarantee and defend the neutrality of the route. Governmental action was, therefore, thought to be necessary in order to nip this diplomatic project in the bud. pose an In ternational the Panama Route. General Burnside, then Senator from Rhode Island, and always an ardent American, accordingly introduced a preliminary resolution in the Senate to the effect that the United States viewed "with serious disquietude any attempt by the powers of Europe to establish under their protection and domination a ship canal across the isthmus of Darien." A typi cal Monroe doctrine discussion followed, and the Senate came finally to the conclusion that no canal across the isthmus should be opened up to the commerce of the world, which was not placed virtually under the protection of the United States. To be sure of its ground the Senate then called on the President for copies of all the diplomatic correspondence that had passed between the United States and foreign governments since 1869 respecting the canal, together with all treaties proposed or submitted. The Republican canal policy already had a history, as we know, and the idea now was to establish precedents therefrom and formulate it anew. Nor was the House to be outdone in the matter of the Monroe doctrine. Mr. Frye introduced the first resolution before this body, stating that any form of protectorate by a European nation on the American isthmus was against the settled policy of the United States, and that it was the interest and the right of this government to have exclusive control of any canal to be constructed across said isthmus. This resolution was at once referred to a select committee, which reported unanimously in its favor. Another resolution was then passed appointing a committee to call together an international convention of representatives from this government and the republics of Central and South America to consider the policy and expediency of a canal and report upon the Monroe doctrine. But the House, too, lacked definite information on the subject, and in order to take no false step in furthering the in |