The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER. 19, 1912.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3683, 19 November 1912, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER. 19, 1912.

“A Fallacy and an Illusion.”

It was no doubt noted from a cable

message in yesterday’s issue that it is expected in the United States that

the opening--of the Panama Canal will load to the diversion of a great amount of trade from other rival routes. As far as the Colonies are concerned it lias not yet been conclusively shown that they will have so very much to gain by the opening of the new waterway as some people would scein to fondly imagine. By way of illustrating this particular aspect of the matter it is of interest to recall what Captain Siiupson-Baikie, of the E. and A. Company, had to say when he was visiting Australia last year. Taking Plymouth as a geographically typical United Kingdom port for the purpose of comparing the distances from Australia and New Zealand by the Capa Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Suez, and Panama routes Captain Simpson-Baikie found that the Panama Canal route would cd- . j advantage except in the cases of Jfet j lington and Auckland. In the case of each of those ports about olio thousand miles are saved by going via j Panama instead of Suez. _ But, then, j

New Zealand lias already the Cape Horn route, which is shorter than the Suez Canal route, so that even for them there will be no revolution of conditions'. In the case of Sydney, the Cape of Good Hope route is ds short as the Panama route, and the Suez route is ono thousand''-miles shorter, while, if MelbourneJlf the’port of departure, , the advantage against Panama is still more marked: it is 2000 miles shorter via Suez,/nearly 100 miles shorter via the Cads of Good Hope, and only about JOO miles longer via Gape Horn tlumjfv Panama. And when there is add# that the distance from New Zealand ports to Plymouth via Pamjna shows only an advantage of ajbut 500. miles over the Cape Horn jffnito (where there are no tolls), there jfs scarcely any room for doubting that the-benefits of the Panama Canal to Australasia have been oyer-rated. By way of further illustrating this aspect of the subject Captain SimpsonBaikie gave the following figures to compare the distances between ports by various routes: Miles.

Sydney to Plymouth, via— , • Auckland, Tahiti, and Panama ... 12,560 Cape of Good Hope 12,340 Wellington, Papa and' Panama 12,290 Suez Canal 11,200 Melbourne to Plymouth, via— Cape Horn ' 13,090 Auckland, Tahiti, and Panama 12,8 it) Wellington, Papa, and Panama 12,560 Cape of Good Hope ... ... 11.870 . Suez Canal T 0,670 Wellington to Plymouth, via— Papa and Panama 11.090 Suez Canal 12,110 Capo of Good Hope 12,910 f Wellington to Plymouth via Rapa 6.500 i Auckland to Plymouth, via : Tahiti and Panama ... 11,300 Auckland to Panama via Tahiti 6,710 Auckland to Vancouver, via Honolulu 6,210 “Every shipping concern,” according to the shipping authority in question, “must have investigated the proposition from the point- of view of commercial economy, with the result, rather surprising to themselves, that they found the saving of distance, which was to play so great-a part- in facilitating trade via Panama, is a fallacy and an illusion. It’s greatest value will be strategic—from the TT.S. point of view.”