No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
United States Commercial Pressures for a Nicaragua Canal in the 1890’s
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Extract
There existed in the United States in the late nineteenth century a strong conviction that the Nicaragua route utilizing the San Juan River and Lake Nicaragua was the only satisfactory route for an interoceanic canal across the American Isthmus. Not only had Lesseps earlier favored this route for a lock canal, but the activity of the French interests in Panama, and then their failure there, had reinforced in the minds of many United States citizens their old desire for a canal across Nicaragua. But the United States interest in a Nicaragua canal had never been dependent upon what happened in Panama; in the early 1880’s, as the French began work in Panama, and later as well, sentiment in the United States favored a Nicaragua canal even though the French should ultimately succeed, for influential persons in the United States—President Hayes and General Grant among them—feared foreign monopoly of a single interoceanic waterway at a time when they had come to regard our free access to such a transit as vital to the national interest.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1964
References
1 Colquhoun, Archibald R., The Key of the Pacific (Westminster, 1895), p. 6 Google Scholar, quoting from Ferdinand de Lesseps, Souvenirs de quarante ans, I, 463.
2 See especially Mack, Gerstle, The Land Divided: A History of the Panama Canal and Other Isthmian Canal Projects (New York, 1944), pp. 281–419 Google Scholar; and Duval, Miles P. Jr., And the Mountains Will Move: The Story of the Building of the Panama Canal (Stanford, Calif., 1947), pp. 31–128 Google Scholar.
3 Mack, Land Divided, pp. 172 ff., passim, presents a good summary of U. S. interest in a Nicaragua canal during the middle decades of the nineteenth century.
4 The San Francisco Morning Call, March 21, 1880, as quoted on p. 34 of the compilation cited infra, n. 27, stated that “the construction of the Panama Canal furnishes no reason why the Nicaragua Canal should be delayed. The former is a foreign company, and in the event of war, would almost certainly be fortified and held by the power whose citizens held the bulk of the stock. . . .” President Hayes’ views were set forth in a special message to Congress in March, 1880, and are conveniently quoted in Barrows, Chester L., William M. Evans, Lawyer, Diplomat, Statesman (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1941), p. 364 Google Scholar; Grant’s, views were stated in “The Nicaragua Canal,” North American Review, CXXXII (February, 1881), 107–116 Google Scholar.
5 Description of the actual work done on a Nicaragua canal can be found in the following places: Nicaragua Canal Construction Co., The Inter-oceanic Canal of Nicaragua (New York, 1891), pp. 48–58 Google ScholarPubMed; the annual report of the Maritime Canal Co. for 1894 in Sen. Report 331, 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3183, p. 23; Sen. Doc. 222, 58th Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 4609, I, 110–111; Colquhoun, The Key, pp. 41–42; Keasbey, Lindley M., The Nicaragua Canal and the Monroe Doctrine: A Political History of Isthmus Transit, with Special Reference to the Nicaragua Canal Project and the Attitude of the United States Government Thereto (New York, 1896), pp. 494–496 Google Scholar, who stated that there was little work of value left by 1896; Sheldon, Henry I., Notes on the Nicaragua Canal (Chicago, 1897), pp. 33–42 Google Scholar; and Mack, Land Divided, p. 219.
6 Sen. Doc. 253 (Part II), 57th Cong., 1st Sess., Ser. 4238, pp. 355–376.
7 See Ibid., pp. 347–352, 434–440; Duval, Miles P. O. F. M., Cadiz to Cathay: The Story of the Long Struggle for a Waterway across the American Isthmus (1st and 2d editions: Stanford, Calif., 1940 and 1947), p. 86 Google Scholar; and Mack, Land Divided, pp. 222–223.
8 Company publications in this period included the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua and the Nicaragua Canal Construction Co., The Maritime Ship Canal of Nicaragua (New York, 1890)Google ScholarPubMed; Nicaragua Canal Construction Co., The Inter-oceanic Canal of Nicaragua; and, by the same company, The Nicaragua Canal (New York, n. d.)Google ScholarPubMed, which was prepared for the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893. Among the individual canal enthusiasts who published books on the subject, Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal, was the most scholarly; Colquhoun, The Key, presented the interesting views of an English author; Sheldon, Notes, was readable and useful, but superficial; while Simmons, William E., Uncle Sam’s New Waterway (New York, c. 1899)Google Scholar, was the least valuable. Simmons’ book was reissued by Harper & Bros, in 1900 as The Nicaragua Canal; and Sheldon’s in new editions by A.C. McClurg & Co. in 1898 and 1902. Numerous magazine and newspaper articles were published, as were various Congressional documents, and the Nicaragua-canal debates in Congress, of course, appeared in the Congressional Record.
9 It was during this period that the Ludlow Board and the first Walker Commission made their investigations and reports, the former reporting in 1895 (House Doc. 279, 54th Cong., 1st Sess., Ser. 3456) and the latter in 1899 ( U. S. Nicaragua Canal Comm., Report of the Nicaragua Canal Commission, 1891–1899 [Baltimore, 1899 Google Scholar]).
10 See, e.g., Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal; Colquhoun, The Key; and Sheldon, Notes (1897). The latter complained, p. 81, that the designers of the proposed Nicaragua-canal locks had not advanced beyond the “general principle “of Leonardo da Vinci’s lock designs!
11 See Sen. Report 1944, 51st Cong., 2d Sess., as printed in Sen. Report 331, 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3183, pp. 83–84; Colquhoun, The Key, pp. 91 ff., 136–141, 259–278; and Sheldon, Notes (1897), pp. 122–153. Sheldon made a special trip to Europe to find out particularly about the history and problems of the Suez, Kiel, and Manchester Canals.
12 Nicaragua Canal Construction Co., The lnter-oceanic Canal of Nicaragua, “Appendix VIII,” pp. 69–72.Google ScholarPubMed
13 Sen. Report 331, 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3183, p. 2; Colquhoun, The Key, pp.,128 ff.; and Sheldon, Notes (1897), pp. 154–169.
14 Sen. Doc. 222, 58th Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 4609, I, 174. More recent estimates are astronomic. In 1931 Sultan’s estimate was $722,000,000, including $50,000,000 for fortifications (House Doc. 139,72d Cong., 1st Sess., Ser. 9536, p. 12); and in 1947 the estimate made under authority of Public Law No. 280 of the 79th Cong., 1st Sess., was $3,566,000,000 for a modern lock canal ( Stratton, James H., “The Future and the Panama Canal,” Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, LXXIV [April, 1948], 453)Google Scholar.
15 Nicaragua Canal Construction Co., The Inter-oceanic Canal of Nicaragua, p. 48.
16 Sera. Report 331, 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3183, pp. 123, 197, 198. Sheldon, Notes (1897), pp. 87–91, 102; and by Colquhoun, The Key, pp. 117–119.
17 Sheldon, Notes (1897), pp. 95–106. See also “Annual Report of Chief Surgeon,” in Nicaragua Canal Construction Co., The lnter-oceanic Canal of Nicaragua, “Appendix XI,” p. 85.Google Scholar
18 The history of the Nicaragua canal guarantee bills is summarized in Miner, Dwight C., The Fight for the Panama Route: The Story of the Spooner Act and the Hay-Herrán Treaty (New York, 1940), pp. 26–30 Google Scholar, and the citations there; and in Mack, Land Divided, pp. 220–222.
19 For the report made by the Maritime Canal Co. on December 6, 1917, the most recent one the present writer has found, see House Doc. 528, 65th Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 7446.
20 Sen. Report 1944, 51st Cong., 2d Sess., as printed in Sen. Report 331, 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3183, p. 42.
21 Keasbey, , Nicaragua Canal, p. 1 Google Scholar. According to Miner, , The Fight for the Panama Route, p. 27 Google Scholar, the Nicaragua route “was a natural choice in the early nineties.”
22 New Orleans Board of Trade, Correspondence, Reports and Addresses, on the Subject of the Commercial and Industrial Value of an Inter-Oceanic Canal (New Orleans, 1900), p. 9.Google Scholar
23 No one has ever questioned the sincerity of Merry’s belief in the advantages of a Nicaragua canal in spite of the fact that his enthusiasm was derived partly from his financial interest in Nicaragua. On Merry’s life and career, see Albion’s, Robert G. sketch in the Dictionary of American Biography, XII, 574–575 Google Scholar; and Merry, William L., The Nicaragua Canal, the Gateway between the Oceans, published by Authority of the Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, the Board of Trade of San Francisco, the Chamber of Commerce of Portland, Oregon, [and] the Chamber of Commerce of San Diego (San Francisco, 1895), p. 46.Google Scholar
24 Merry, , The Nicaragua Canal, p. 46.Google Scholar
25 Board of Trade of San Francisco, Report of Special Committee on Inter-Oceanic Canal. “The Key of the Pacific,” Merry, Wm. Lawrence, Chairman; Dempster, C.J., Secretary (San Francisco, 1880)Google Scholar. Cf. the statement of James B. Eads’ biographer that when in August, 1880, Eads spoke before the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce on his proposed ship railway his audience was “very prejudiced ”at the outset since at that time Californians were opposed to any Isthmian crossing in the belief that their state would lose a large part of its Oriental trade to eastern and southern ports. Dorsey, Florence, Road to the Sea: The Story of James B. Eads and the Mississippi River (New York, 1947), pp. 243–244 Google Scholar.
26 Merry, , The Nicaragua Canal, p. 17.Google Scholar
27 Resolutions of the Legislatures of Louisiana, California and Oregon and of the Great Commercial Bodies of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Richmond, Toledo, Charleston, Denver, Memphis, Savannah, Wheeling, Portland (Oregon), and Diego, San, in Favor of the Nicaragua Canal, together with Opinions of Leading Newspapers (New York, 1888)Google Scholar.
28 See ibid., pp. 1–26.
29 Ibid., p. 10, quoting the [Cincinnati] Commercial Gazette, March 28, 1888.
30 Quoted in Resolutions of the Legislatures of Louisiana, California and Oregon and of the Great Commercial Bodies . . . in Favor of the Nicaragua Canal . . . , p. 13.
31 Reprinted ibid., p. 17, from the Richmond Whig, May 11, 1888.
32 Colquhoun, The Key, pp. 306, 308.
33 Keasbey, , The Nicaragua Canal, pp. 469, 512 Google Scholar.
34 This address was printed under the title, The Nicaragua Canal: Would It Pay the United States to Construct It? Remarks of C.P. Huntington at the Seventh Annual Banquet of the Chamber of Commerce of Galveston, Texas, March 16, 1900.
35 “The Isthmian Canal: Factors Affecting the Choice of Routes,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, XVI (August, 1902), 514–515.Google Scholar
36 Sen. Doc. 222, 58th Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 4609, I, 577.
37 Pratt, Julius W., “American Business and the Spanish-American War,” Hispanic American Historical Review, XIV (May, 1934), 179–181, 187, 191n, 196.Google Scholar
38 Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal, p. 387.
39 On the activities of the protagonists of the Panama project, see the references in n. 2, supra; and on those of the Eads project, see Dorsey, Road to the Sea, pp. 225 ff.
40 The following one is perhaps representative: The Nicaragua Canal. Investigate before Investing. An Earnest Flea for a Thorough and Impartial Official Investigation of the Economic, Commercial, Military and Political Aspects of the Nicaragua Canal (Washington, D. C., 1898)Google Scholar. He also published “ The Proposed American Interoceanic Canal in Its Commercial Aspects,” National Geographic Magazine, X (August, 1899), 297–310.Google Scholar
41 Claire Powell, Librarian, Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, 65 Liberty Street, New York 5, N. Y., to the present writer, December 4, 1946.
42 Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal, p. 457. According to Mack, Land Divided, p. 220, the Chamber urged Congress, by resolution, to pass the pending guarantee act, while Company agents influenced public opinion to protest against Congressional inaction. On Warner Miller’s life, see the sketch by Freeman, W. Gilpin in the Dictionary of American Biography, XII, 641 Google Scholar.
43 Powell to the present writer, as cited, supra, n. 41.
44 Sen. Misc. Doc. 7, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Ser. 2904.
45 Sen. Misc. Doc. 36, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Ser. 2904.
46 This was reprinted together with an article by Merry, W.L. (“The Nicaragua Canal: Its Political Aspects,” The Forum, XII [February, 1892]), in an unpaginated pamphlet published in New York in 1892Google Scholar.
47 Miller, Warner, The Nicaragua Canal, the Gateway to the Atlantic, Address at the Annual Banquet of the Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, May 19, 1892 (San Francisco, [1892?])Google Scholar.
48 Seamon, Lloyd I., Potter, Orlando B., Snow, Ambrose, et al., a Committee of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation, Report ([New York] March 9, 1892), pp. 1–6 Google Scholar.
49 Ibid., pp. 6–7.
50 Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal, p. 457; and Mack, Land Divided, p. 220.
51 The account of the St. Louis Convention which follows is from Proceedings of the Nicaragua Canal Convention Held at St. Louis, Mo., in the Exposition Music Hall on the 2nd and 3rd Days of June, 1895. Brief references can be found in Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal, p. 458; and Mack, Land Divided, p. 220.
52 Proceedings, Nicaragua Canal Convention in St. Louis, p. 9. On the lives of Converse, Francis, and Estee, see, respectively: The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, V (1907), 338–339; Stevens’, Walter T. essay in the Dictionary of American Biography, VI, 577–578 Google Scholar; and Who Was Who in America, I (1942), 376.
53 J.J. Williams was very likely John Jay Williams, who years before had been associated with Tehuantepec railroad and canal projects. See The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, VIII (1924), 147, on Waterhouse, on whom also see Dilliard’s, Irving essay in the Dictionary of American Biography, XIX, 533 Google Scholar.
54 Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal, pp. 458–459; and Mack, Land Divided, pp. 220–221.
55 U.S. Congress, Senate, “A Memorial of the Legislature of Alabama and a Memorial of the National Nicaragua Canal Convention in Favor of the Speedy Completion of the Nicaragua Canal under the Direction and Control of the United States,” Sen. Misc. Doc. 16, 52d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3064, p. 2.
56 Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal, p. 459. On Foster, see The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, X (1909), 83–84; and Who Was Who in America, I, 417.
57 Waterhouse’s address at New Orleans on November 30, 1892, was published as a pamphlet under the title, Canal, The Nicaragua, Government Control ([St. Louis?], 1893)Google Scholar.
58 Sen. Misc. Doc. 16, 52d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3064, p. 3.
59 Ibid., pp. 1–2.
60 Sen. Misc. Doc. 47, 52d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3064. On the Sherman bill, see the Congressional Record, 52d Cong., 2d Sess., XXIV (Part I), 260; ibid., 55th Cong., 3d Sess., XXXII (Part I), 896–897; Keasbey, Nicaragua Canal, p. 460; and Mack, Land Divided, p. 221.
61 The following constituent bodies had adopted resolutions on the subject: the St. Louis Merchants’ Exchange, the New York Board of Trade and Transportation, and the Philadelphia Board of Trade (Sen. Misc. Doc. 32, 52d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. 3064).
62 Ibid.
63 Sen. Misc. Doc. 15, 53d Cong., 3d Sess., Ser. 3281; and Congressional Record, 53d Cong., 3d Sess., XXVII (Part I), 286. A.P. Williams was probably Abraham P. Williams, a former U.S. Senator and a commercial leader. See The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, XIII (1906), 52–53; and Who Was Who in America, I, 1350.
64 Reported July 5, 1894. Congressional Record, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess., XXVI (Part VII), 7138.
65 Sen. Misc. Doc. IS, 53d Cong., 3d Sess., Ser. 3281, p. 1.
66 Ibid., pp. 1–2.
67 Sen. Misc. Doc. 7, 53d Cong., 3d Sess., Ser. 3281, p. 2. This was presented in Congress December 3, 1894 (Congressional Record, 53d Cong., 3d Sess., XXVII [Part I], 11–12).
68 Sen. Misc. Doc. 7, 53d Cong., 3d Sess., Ser. 3281, pp. 2–3.
69 Tacoma; Congressional Record, 53d Cong., 3d Sess., XXVII (Part I), 11. Eureka, California: ibid., pp. 11, 552. Los Angeles: ibid. Nashville: ibid., p. 341. The Nashville Chamber wanted “an American canal under American control ”and urged legislation looking to that end. The text of the petition is printed ibid., p. 286. Port Townsend, Washington: ibid., p. 550.
70 Portland, Maine (Board of Trade): ibid., p. 150. Brunswick, Georgia (Board of Trade) : ibid., p. 385. Bowling Green, Kentucky (Commercial Club) : ibid., 550. It is not clear what point of view this last group represented.
71 San Diego: ibid., pp. 620, 690. Pasadena: ibid. Ventura: ibid. San Francisco: ibid., pp. 552, 620, 690. Napa: ibid. Eureka: ibid. Residents of Southern California: ibid.
72 Ibid., p. 620.
73 ibid., p. 578.
74 Ibid., Part II, p. 1052.
75 Ibid., p. 1441.
76 Ibid., Part III, p.2205.
77 The text is printed ibid., 54th Cong., 1st Sess., XXVIII (Part I), 291.
78 Ibid., 53d Cong., 3d Sess., XXVII (Part IV), 3075.
79 Ibid., pp. 2059, 3251. A memorial was also received at this time “from citizens of the United States residing in Australia, praying for the Nicaragua Canal “(ibid.).
80 Ibid., Part II, p. 1604.
81 Merry, The Nicaragua Canal, p. 42.
82 Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua, Cotton States and International Exposition, Atlanta, Ga., 1898. The Nicaragua Canal (New York, [1895])Google ScholarPubMed.
83 The California Fruit Growers, and the citizens of Monterey: Congressional Record, 54th Cong., 1st Sess., XXVIII (Part I), 517. The One Hundred Thousand Club of Fresno: ibid., p. 779. San Jose Grange No. 10, Patrons of Husbandry: ibid., p. 544.
84 Ibid., p. 517.
85 Ibid., 54th Cong., 2d Sess., XXIX (Part I), 324.
86 Ibid. (Part II), p. 1238. The text of the resolution is printed ibid.
87 See the Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, January 25, 1897, as referred to in Pratt, “American Business and the Spanish-American War,” p. 180n. It may be noted that the following business organizations, not yet mentioned in this connection, had by late February, 1897, all urged Congress to assist with the construction of a canal, Nicaragua: the Louisville Commercial Club, the Ogden Commercial Congress, and the Seattle Bankers’ Association (Sheldon, Notes [1897], p. 59)Google Scholar.
88 The text of this Florida memorial is printed in the Congressional Record, 55th Cong., 2d Sess., XXXI (Part III), 2521–2522.
89 See Parks, E. Taylor, Colombia and the United States, 1965-1932 (Durham, North Carolina, 1935), p. 383nGoogle Scholar, where the Kansas City Times (D), Cincinnati Enquirer (D), Seattle Post-Intelligencer (R), and the San Francisco Call (R) are listed as newspapers promoting the idea that a Nicaragua canal should be built and constructed by the U.S. Government.
90 Pratt, “American Business and the Spanish-American War,” p. 180.
91 Extracts from these speeches were enclosed with a letter to the present writer from Noel Sargent, Secretary of the National Association of Manufacturers, December 24, 1946.
92 For the action taken by these bodies in 1898, see their annual reports as cited by Pratt, “American Business and the Spanish-American War,” p. 180n.
93 The text of this memorial is printed in the Congressional Record, 55th Cong., 2d Sess., XXXI (Part VII), 6567.
94 The full text of this resolution is printed ibid.
95 The text is printed ibid., 55th Cong., 3d Sess., XXXII (Part I), 177.
96 The text of Morgan’s bill of June, 1898, as read in the Senate on December 12, 1898, is printed ibid., pp. 97–98. The Mechanics were apparently a little confused in their geography.
97 The text of this resolution is printed ibid., p. 207.
98 Ibid. For the verbal exchange in the Senate at that time, see ibid., pp. 207–208.
99 Ibid., p. 525.
100 Ibid., p. 829. Italics added.
101 Ibid., Part II, p. 1236.
102 The text is printed ibid., pp. 1638–1639.
103 The text is printed ibid., Part III, p. 2263.
104 The text of this memorial is printed ibid., p. 2533.
105 Ibid., 56th Cong., 1st Sess., XXXIII (Part II), 1705.
105 Ibid., p. 1685.
107 A typewritten copy of this resolution was enclosed with Sargent’s letter as cited supra, n. 91.
108 New Orleans Board of Trade, Correspondence, Reports and Addresses on the Subject of the Commercial and Industrial Value of an Inter-Oceanic Canal, p. 40.
109 Ibid., p. 14.
110 The text is printed in the Congressional Record, 56th Cong., 2d Sess., XXXIV (Part II), 1497.
111 The text of this Oregon memorial is printed ibid., Part III, p. 2247.
112 Miner, The Fight for the Panama Route, p. 104 n, thinks a definite turn in opinion was already evident in November, 1900, when the second Walker Commission filed its preliminary report in favor of the Nicaragua route. Parks, Colombia and the United States, p. 384, presents evidence that engineering opinion had probably “shifted towards Panama ”by, he seems to mean, the turn of the century; and his examination of leading engineering and geographical publications of the period leads him to the conclusion that “the more sane engineers ”were ahead of the “politicians and jingoes ”in their conversion to the Panama route.
113 On the Spooner Act (signed June 28, 1902) and subsequent events, see, e.g., DuVal, Cadiz to Cathay, pp. 160–168 and passim; Mack, Land Divided, pp. 429 ff., passim; and Miner, The Fight for the Panama Route, pp. 117 ff.
114 See the text of this petition in the Congressional Record, 58th Cong., 2d Sess., XXXVIII (Part II), 1238.