and ship. If a man builds a fast ship and turns it into engine room, let him pay for it. He charges more for his space and more for his passengers, and gets it.

Mr. STEVENS. My proposition took into consideration the ship that was earning money and the ship that was not earning money. There is another point: Have you noticed the last report of the Commissioner of Navigation on the question of net, gross, and displacement tonnage?

Col. WILSON. No, sir.

Mr. STEVENS. I wish to state here for the benefit of the committee that the Commissioner of Navigation discusses the same things you discuss. He shows little variation between the British and American measurements. He also finds there is not the difference, or the exact difference, between the British measurements and American measurements that you find, and Dr. Johnson, in his report, and in his forthcoming report, also finds a difference in your figures and the figures of the Commissioner of Navigation. The Commissioner of Navigation has reported to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, suggesting that the rules be revised by act of Congress, so that there shall be accord among the different maritime nations, and that there shall be an accurate definition of what constitutes net, gross, and displacement tonnage, so that there will be no difficulty in their practical application.

Col. WILSON. That is a good scheme.

Mr. STEVENS. As applied to the business of the canal, if this committee can formulate, or if Congress can formulate, a plan that shall be equitable as between passenger and freight ships, as between cargo-carrying ships and empty ships, as between ships that carry a partial cargo and ships that carry a full cargo, and this plan can be equitably applied, will it not be of great benefit to us in the operation of the canal?

Col. WILSON. Yes, sir; because when ships go through Suez for the first time they are held up in order to check the measurements. They are sometimes held up for as much as eight hours to check up the measurements to see that they are correct.

I had in my own mind the case of ships going through with bal· last, if going for cargo, and that they should have a reasonable reduction when they passed on through, and if they returned with cargo within a reasonable time, that they only pay the actual cost of going through-in other words, rebate for a ship in ballast.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be better for them to pay the full rate going through in case something happened to them and they did not come back, and give them a rebate on the return trip?

Col. WILSON. Yes, sir; that would be a good scheme. A rebate is a powerful factor, as you gentlemen may know.

The CHAIRMAN. In general terms, at the present time the mode of measuring is by taking the internal capacity of the ship, and the Suez mode finds about 20 per cent more tonnage in the ship

Col. WILSON (interposing). About 13 per cent or 14 per cent more. The CHAIRMAN. That is the Danube measurement?

Col. WILSON. No, sir; they use the Danube measurement for deducting engine-room space only. For ships with fixed bunkers they

use the German rule, which is to measure the bunkers themselves. The owner has the option.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not wish to swear myself if I can find testimony without it, but in the limited reading I have been able to do on this subject I think I have found about 20 per cent increase by the Suez mode.

Col. WILSON. Your opportunities for investigating the matter have been better than mine, because books and information are pretty scarce down here.

The CHAIRMAN. But, judging from the facility with which you speak, perhaps I have not improved my opportunities. But the question I am leading up to is that with that differential of 20 per cent in the number of tons charged on the Suez route, if we fix the same rate per ton, we would still have a great advantage over them. Col. WILSON. You can take the average and bring it up. For instance, on the basis of 64 per cent, with a net tonnage rate of $1 per net ton, the gross tonnage would be 64 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have finished your statement, we are under renewed obligations to you.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. In answering some questions by Mr. Esch, you referred to the canal as a revenue producer. By what means do you propose to produce revenue-by tolls on traffic? You spoke of the canal as a revenue producer and I was wondering whether you had in mind tolls on traffic and for the use of the terminals.

Col. WILSON. I do not remember in what connection I used it. The CHAIRMAN. I think you will find in Col. Wilson's testimony of Monday night a full discussion of that matter.

Col. WILSON. By "revenue producer" I meant revenue obtained from tolls.

Mr. Escн. I asked him whether gross tonnage would be a better revenue producer than net tonnage.

Col. WILSON. It would be a more just revenue producer, because it would smooth out some of these inequalities between ship and ship, whereby large and fast ships would pay much less tolls than they should pay, in my opinion.

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Ancon, Canal Zone, Tuesday, December 19, 1911. The committee met at 3 o'clock p. m., Hon. William C. Adamson (chairman) presiding.

There were also present Col. George W. Goethals, chairman and chief engineer of the Isthmian Canal Commission, and Lieut. Col. David Du Bose Gaillard.

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. DAVID DU BOSE GAILLARD, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY.

The CHAIRMAN. Col. Gaillard, we understand that you have charge of the summit-level work between the locks, and the committee would thank you to give us in your own way a statement concerning the

condition of your work, the progress you are making, and your hopes of completion, etc.

Col. GAILLARD. I am placed in charge by the chairman and chief engineer of the central division, which extends from Pedro Miguel to Gatun, about 35 miles in length and including the entire summit level outside of the locks. The work has been progressing at what I believe to be a satisfactory rate. The principal difficulties experienced by us have been due almost entirely to slides or breaks in the banks. We have taken out to December 1, 1911, about 13,000,000 yards more than would be included in the theoretical prism of the canal as planned, due to the presence of these slides and breaks, and it is estimated that we will yet have to take out about 4,000,000 yards or more. That, however, can only be estimated, and that figure may not be reached, or it may be exceeded.

In the light of present progress, it seems to be about right, and we have now no reason to change that estimate that was made in July last. We have ample equipment for completing the work. We have been furnished with ample funds in this division, and have been given ample authority by the chairman and chief engineer, and there has been no real shortage of labor. The labor conditions on the whole have been satisfactory. There was some slight shortage of Spaniards in July and August, but it did not materially affect the work, and now there is an ample supply of labor and the rate of progress up to he present time has been considerably ahead of that estimated, in spite of the slides. We have not so far exceeded the estimated cost of the work, in spite of the slides. In other words, the unit price is less than that estimated in 1908 (when the estimate for the completion of the entire canal was submitted), by such a margin as will permit, if the slides do not exceed the figures that have been previously given, us to complete the excavation well within the limits of the estimate submitted in September, 1908, when there had then been only two slides of any considerable consequence. The work is in such condition now that there is no reason to believe, unless something utterly unforeseen happens, that the completion of the excavation in the central division will be delayed beyond July 1, 1913. It may be finished sooner, but the work of cleaning up and finishing up things generally will necessarily go slower and give a smaller output than at present. Our output will be gradually reduced from this time forth. I should say, on the whole, that conditions are satisfactory in every waymore so probably than they have been in two or three years. I can give you a statement of what has been taken out and of what remains to be taken out. I would state that we have excavated in the central division up to December 1, 1911, 84,065,024 cubic yards, leaving still to be excavated 17,736,272 cubic yards. The work is about 84 per cent completed.

Mr. ESCH. The average output per month in the central division is how much?

Col. GAILLARD. The output per month in the Culebra cut, which is the principal place where we are now working in the central division, averaged about 1,350,000 cubic yards for the past few months. Mr. SABATH. What is the present cost of the excavation or removal of that per cubic yard?

Col. GAILLARD. Including all overhead charges, it has recently run along from about 58 to 63 cents. I have the division cost 99 and

can give you that accurately. Beginning in January a year ago, the division cost, that is, the cost without the overhead charges, was as follows: January, 49.3 cents; February, 43.4 cents; March, 37.6 cents that is the lowest ever reached; April, 45.7 cents; May, 52.8 cents; June, 46.7 cents; and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, the average was 48.8 cents. The charges for July were 47.5 cents; August, 49.3 cents; September, 51.5 cents; October, which was our rainiest month, 53.8 cents; November, 53.9 cents; and December, 51.4

cents.

The CHAIRMAN. You say that notwithstanding the slides you expect to keep the work within the estimate. Do you mean that you have been able to reduce the cost per cubic yard as the work has increased so as to make the total no larger?

Col. GAILLARD. The total cost will be no greater, in spite of the slides, than the estimates submitted in 1908, and will probably be less. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any question left in your division except the physical matter of serving cars and shovels and moving excavated matter and transporting the spoil?

Col. GAILLARD. Yes; we have the question of preserving the slopes. The chairman has ordered a board to report upon the advisability or necessity of revetting the slopes in the vicinity of the surface of the water.

The CHAIRMAN. Reinforcing the wall?

Col. GAILLARD. Yes; to prevent disintegration or deterioration of the poorer quality of rock. When the board was appointed it was found, on inspection, that the depth of the canal was not sufficient to permit anything like an accurate estimate of the amount of slope that would require revetment. This can only be determined when the bottom has been reached for the full width up to the sides.

The CHAIRMAN. If you introduce that new element of concrete revetment, do you apprehend any extended increase of your expense or delay in finishing the work?

Col. GAILLARD. We have an estimate for this purpose of $4,000,000, and I think it will probably be ample. There will be some of the canal bank that will not require revetting. This is an important point on which the board has submitted no report as yet. I think, however, that the amount estimated is ample.

The CHAIRMAN. What effect will this additional work have on your calculations as to the time of completion?

Col. GAILLARD. I do not think it will delay at all the opening of the canal. It would have no effect on delaying the excavation, and I believe by putting in a number of concrete mixers and a number of revetting parties, even if it be found necessary to do the whole estimated amount of revetment, that it could be completed before the canal is opened for navigation. I would state in this connection that my idea is to do as much of it as can be done before the canal is filled, and then, if it is practicable, to fill the canal up to the level 78 feet above sea level, we could then work with barges right up against the banks. The idea is that this revetment would extend from about 80 feet above sea level possibly to the top of the 95-foot bench, in which case the use of scows and barges would give ideal working conditions. You could mount the concrete mixers and carry the materials on the barges, and move them right alongside the bank, working fast and economically.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any understanding on the part of some that when you turn the water on the water will aid in sustaining the banks and that you can finish dredging under water?

Col. GAILLARD. That could be done. The water will exert a counter pressure that will be beneficial. It will also protect from further disintegration any of the rock that is submerged, as our rock has protection from disintegration when completely under water. Exposure to air causes the disintegration of the rock, and letting the water in the canal will be beneficial in two ways-first, preserving the rock that is submerged from further disintegration, and setting up a counter pressure that will have a beneficial effect in tending to counteract slipping from the bank below the 95-foot level into the canal prism.

The CHAIRMAN. When you have finished what you desire to say, the members of the committee would like to call your attention to some matters.

Col. GAILLARD. I would like to state in connection with what I have said about revetting the canal, that no official schedule has yet been submitted. We are waiting until we reach the bottom of the canal and can study the actual condition of the slopes that would have to be revetted. I would like to add, however, that we have made experiments with the "cement gun," a new device by which cement mortar is applied quickly on the surface of rock or any other hard material; and a large area, which you probably saw this morning, was covered with a mortar coating by that cement gun. It has not proven sufficient to prevent disintegration of the rock, and I do not believe that with most of our poorer rocks it will be a success. In addition, we have tried some concrete revetment, put on from 12 to 18 inches thick, and tied into the rock by iron bars sunk in holes drilled in the bank itself. That, I think, will be successful. This last method is much more expensive, and if the cement gun had been a success it would have been much more economical and quicker, but the other, I think, will be entirely practicable, and can be done well within the limits of the estimated cost of revetment. I would say, in connection with revetment, that some of the slopes will be in condition, if it is deemed advisable to begin then, for revetment by about May 1, 1912.

The CHAIRMAN. But where the slides have their origin far in the hill none of that work would do any good?

Col. GAILLARD. No; it would be impossible within any reasonable limit of cost to control a slide. We will have to let it come in and then remove it as rapidly as possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Do any gentlemen of the committee desire to ask Col. Gaillard any questions?

Mr. SIMS. Is there what you might call an imposed limit to these slides? Will there be a time when all of it will have taken place, or is it due to a continuing cause?

Col. GAILLARD. I think that they will decrease as our excavation ceases. In the first place, we will cease to dig deeper and deeper under the slides, thereby undermining them, and we will quit blasting and jarring the earth. The vibrations produced by a large number of heavily loaded trains is considerable, and when work has ceased, when trains have stopped, and the further blasting and digging down