No one expects a speedy recurrence of the disaster. The press of the entire country not only prophesy a quick restoration of the city, but they even congratulate San Francisco on its opportunity to show its grit. Says the New York Times: "Unquestionably San Francisco will be rebuilt. The domestic and foreign commerce of which it is the immediate and indispensable center makes that entirely certain. The vast interests, productive, industrial, financial, mercantile, and connected with transportation, will not be denied. And, paradoxical as it may seem, the completeness of the destruction offers to those in control of these great interests an opportunity unlike any presented to an enterprising and intelligent body of able men in the history of cities."

The assurance given by Mr. D. O. Mills that he would at once proceed to replace his own building there, thinks the New York Tribune, "denoted a spirit which will undoubtedly animate other owners of property at the Golden Gate who have had experiences similar to his." "Lessons," says The Journal of Commerce, "may be learned from this experience which will diminish the dangers of the future." The lessons refer to the water supply and safer construction. "So far as yet appears, adds The Journal of Commerce, "the safety of steel construction, even for high buildings, has been vindicated." "It may be," says the New York Sun, "that there will be an exodus from San Francisco of those who have the means to travel and can find opportunities elsewhere; but they will be in the minority." Most of the inhabitants will doubtless stay and rebuild their city, and, to quote The Tribune again, "Five years hence, there is

good reason to believe, they will survey with pride and gratitude a larger and more beautiful city than the one which has just been destroyed." Already the Federal Government is making plans for reconstructing its buildings there. Railway companies have decided to reduce freight on all building material, but the insurance companies, with perhaps some exceptions, can pay only for fire risks. At first they generously offered not to discriminate between fire and earthquake. The appeal of the press on behalf of the city is meeting with generous response. But San Francisco's need is most dire. As The World puts it:

"When General Funston speaks of the danger of a famine, he speaks deliberately and as an officer of responsibility. He sees actually under his eyes conditions which a frenzied writer of fiction would hardly dare depict for the sake of sensation. He has watched the complex machinery of civilization collapse, turn to ashes, and a twisted and grotesque caricature of itself. A great, modern, well-built community has been converted into a blackened, fire-swept desert.'

"The desolation and distress touch the deepest sympathy of all," cries the Philadelphia Press; "but they do more than stir the fountains of pity -they must start the streams of instant and generous help." And in a case like this, the New York American puts in, "a million dollars does not go far. This is, in short, a case which calls for assistance not only from the few who are rich, but from the entire country, man, woman, and child, according to their ability. "Give, therefore," adds The American, "give in humanity's name to the limit of your means, and give at once.'

THE BUILDING OF THE PANAMA

CANAL

(1550-1909)

THE "ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA'S”

ACCOUNT1

When he crossed the Atlantic, the object Columbus had in view was to find a western passage from Europe to Cathay. It was with the greatest reluctance, and only after a generation of unremitting toil that the explorers who had succeeded him became convinced that the American continent was continuous, and formed a barrier of enormous extent to the passage of vessels. The question of cutting a canal through this barrier at some suitable point was immediately raised. In 1550 the Portuguese navigator, Antonio Galvao, published a book to demonstrate that a canal could be cut at Tehuantepec, Nicaragua, Panama or Darien, and in 1551 the Spanish historian, F. L. De Gomara, submitted a memorial to Philip II, urging in forcible language that the work be undertaken without delay. But the project was opposed by the Spanish Government, who had now concluded that a monopoly of communication with their possessions in the New World was of more importance than a passage by

1 From the article on Panama in the eleventh edition of the "Encyclopedia Britannica." By permission of the pub lishers, the University of Cambridge. Copyright, 1911.

sea to Cathay. It even discouraged the improvement of the communications by land. To seek or make known any better route than the one from Porto Bello to Panama was forbidden under penalty of death. For more than two centuries no serious steps were taken toward the construction of the canal, if exception be made of William Paterson's disastrous Darien scheme in 1698.

The French plan was for a sea-level canal having a depth of 292 feet and bottom width of 72 feet, involving excavation estimated at 157,000,000 cubic yards. The cost was estimated by De Lesseps in 1880 at 658,000,000 francs, and the time required at eight years. The terminus on the Atlantic side was fixt by the anchorage at Colon, and that on the Pacific side by the anchorage at Panama. Leaving Colon, the canal was to pass through low ground by a direct line for a distance of six miles to Gatun, where it intersected the valley of the Chagres River; pass up that valley for a distance of twenty-one miles to Obispo, where it left the Chagres and ascended the valley of a tributary, the Cumacho; cut through the watershed at Culebra, and thence descend by the valley of the Rio Grande to Panama Bay. Its total length, from deep water in the Atlantic to deep water in the Pacific, was about forty-seven miles.

Work under this plan continued until the latter part of 1887, the management being characterized by a degree of extravagance and corruption rarely, if ever, equalled in the history of the world. By that time it had become evident that the canal could not be completed at the sea-level with the resources of time and money then avail

able. The plan was accordingly changed to one including locks, and work was pushed on with vigor until 1889, when the company, becoming bankrupt, was dissolved by a judgment of the Tribunal Civil de la Seine, dated the 4th of February, 1889, a liquidator being appointed by the court to take charge of its affairs.

The interest of the United States in an isthmian canal was not essentially different from that of other maritime nations down to about the middle of the nineteenth century, but it assumed great strength when California was acquired, and it has steadily grown as the importance of the Pacific States has developed. In 1848 and again in 1884, treaties were negotiated with Nicaragua authorizing the United States to build the canal, but in neither case was the treaty ratified. The Spanish War of 1898 gave a tremendous impetus to popular interest in the matter, and it seemed an article of the national faith that the canal must be built, and, furthermore, that it must be under American control.

To the American people the canal appears to be not merely a business enterprise from which a direct revenue is to be obtained, but rather a means of unifying and strengthening their national political interests, and of developing their industries, particularly in the Pacific States; in short, a means essential to their national growth. The Isthmian Canal Commission, created by Congress in 1899 to examine all practicable routes, and to report which was the most practicable and most feasible for a canal under the control, management and ownership of the United States, reported that there was no route which did not present greater disadvantages than those of