years before. In 1861. the State of Virginia went into the rebellion, and during the progress of the war the Government of the United States took possession of the canal and aqueduct. The canal was nearly destroyed. The aqueduct was turned into a bridge for the use of the Government and the public and used for five years for the transportation of troops, munitions of war, &c., into Virginia. During that period the old aqueduct was about worn out.

At the close of the rebellion the old company resumed possession and control of the canal, but found itself bankrupt and without the means to prosecute the work of repair. They therefore advertised that they would lease it to anybody who would take it for a term of years for a fair consideration. The gentlemen named in this bill came forward and made a lease with the old company for ninety-nine years for a certain consideration in money to be paid to the canal company. Fearing that the old canal company had no authority in law to make the lease, and that the State of Virginia had acquired jurisdiction over the company by the act of retrocession of 1846, these gentlemen, Messrs. Wells, Quigley, and Dungan, went to the Legislature of Virginia in 1867, I think, and secured the passage of an act authorizing the old company to make a lease and confirming any lease that they might make.

The question may be asked why Congress should ratify that grant or action of the Virginia Legislature. It may be said that it is a rebel Legislature. I think not. It will be remembered that Governor Peirpoint formed a government, and established its headquarters at Alexandria, during the rebellion in 1863, and that that Legislature was recognized by Congress when it required the assent of the Vir ginia Legislature to the creation of the State of West Virginia out of the domain of old Virginia. After the suppression of the rebellion this Legislature went to Richmond with Peirpoint at its head. In 1867 an election was ordered, which was acquiesced in by the administrative authorities of the Government after the suppression of the rebellion, and that election resulted in the election of members of the Legislature loyal to the Government of the United States, and who have been recognized as such up to this time. That is all the connection that the Legislature of Virginia has had with the subject. It is proposed that the corporation may have authority to make this lease, and the sanction of that Legislature is required.

Now, then, what is asked by this bill? These lessees of the old canal company have gone on and expended the necessary amount of money to put the old canal in thorough repair. They have built a new aqueduct at a cost of at least $250,000 to replace the old one which the Government used during the entire war without compensation to the old company. They now propose to build a bridge for the use of the public on the same piers and on the top of the framework of the aqueduct. It will make a very convenient bridge, as regards location, for the convenience of the public both in Virginia and in the District of Columbia. They propose to build a bridge and to be remunerated by the tolls that they shall collect. It will be remembered that there are two other bridges in the District of Columbia-the Long Bridge and the Chain Bridge-and the people will at all times have their option over which bridge they will cross. It will be entirely at their option whether they will use this bridge for compensation to the builders or not. That is all there is in this bill. The committee have examined the proposition thoroughly, and, I believe without a dissenting voice, have recommended the passage of the bill as a public convenience, interfering with no public or private rights whatsoever in the District of Columbia; and if nobody desires any further information I will ask the previous question.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Oh, I hope my colleague will not call the previous question. I hope he will let us discuss this bill a little.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I cannot yield for discussion at the present time. If my colleague proposes an amendment I will hear him, or I will yield for a question only.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am much obliged to my colleague for his courtesy. I would like to move some amendments to the bill. I do not know that it is in order to move an amendment if the gentleman insists on the previous question, but I presume the House would like to know something in regard to the bill before it votes upon it.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I do not yield for the purpose of discussion. I have told the House something about the bill already, and if my colleague is not satisfied with the bill I will yield to him to offer amendments.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will suggest an amendment to my colleague.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I object to debate. If the gentleman will suggest an amendment I will hear it.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There is a provision in the fifth section of the bill that as soon as the bridge is so far completed as to be ready, fit, and convenient for the passage of persons and animals, &c., but there is no provision here as to who shall certify when the|| bridge is ready and fit. I propose to amend that.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I yielded for an amendment, and not for debate.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am stating an amendment and referring to the portion of the bill to which it is applicable. But I will first propose to strike out a portion of the fourth section. It provides that the said railroad shall be kept on the same footing as postal roads are required to be kept. There is no objection to that, but there is to what follows, namely, "and the same is hereby declared to be a postal road." I would like to know of my colleague why he desires to have such a provision as that in the bill? Mr. INGERSOLL. What objection have you to it?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What is the purpose of making this particular piece of railroad specifically by law a postal road for the benefit of this company. Does the gentleman object to striking that out?

Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, not very much. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Well, let it be stricken out, then.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I will say in reply to the gentleman from the Galena district, [Mr. WASHBURNE]-for I want to treat my colleague with candor the citizens of Georgetown many years ago in their corporate capacity brought an action against this Alexandria Bridge Company upon the ground that it was an unlawful structure over a navigable river, and was a nuisance. You will find the case reported in 12 Peters. The Supreme Court held in that case that it was not an unlawful structure; and confirmed the decision of the circuit court, which dismissed the bill.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If that be so, then what is the use of this extraordinary legislation?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I will tell the gentleman. No longer ago than last winter the citizens of Georgetown brought another action against this company upon the ground that it was an obstruction of the navigation of this river. The case was heard before the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and after an elaborate argument, and a long hearing, the court decided that it was a legal structure and not a nuisance, and dismissed the case. We have thus had the adjudication of those courts upon this question, and it is, perhaps, not really important for the interests of this company that Congress shall declare it a postal road, or a public way for the Government. But it can do no harm, and will put at rest the constant litigation that the citizens of Georgetown insist upon as against this company.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is just what I supposed was the reason why this was put in here. There is a matter of litiga

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There has been.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Yes, sir,

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. And gentlemen want to come in here and cut off Georgetown and everybody else by putting this extraordinary provision in this bill.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] yield to me? Mr. INGERSOLL. For a question.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I wish to inquire whether by a permanent provision of the present law all railroads are not postal roads now? That is my impression, and I once had something to do with this subject.

Mr. INGERSOLL. If that is so, then let this provision on this subject be allowed to remain in this bill. But I am not aware that such is the law.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I think it is.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I know that in the Wheeling bridge case the company was chartered to build a bridge; and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company brought suit against the bridge, because, as that company alleged, it was an obstruction to the navigation of the Ohio river.

Mr. BROOMALL. The city of Pittsburg brought the action.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I think both the city and the company did so. The States of Ohio and Virginia chartered a company to build that bridge. One action was brought by, I think, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company; that is my recollection, though I may be wrong about that; still it was a Pennsylvania interest that brought the action. Up to that time there had been no congressional action whatever in reference to that structure. Subsequently to bringing that suit the bridge company came before Congress and asked for some affirmative legislation which should recognize it as a lawful structure. I do not say how that legislation was got through Congress, for I do not know. I was not here. I simply know the fact that affirmative legislation was had. And the Supreme Court aiter that recognized the action of Congress as valid and binding upon the Supreme Court when it declared that to be a lawful structure and a post road. I have not looked at the point whether all railroads are by general law declared to be post roads or not. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. They are.

Mr. INGERSOLL. It may be so; if they are not, they ought to be. However, if the House wants to strike out this provision I am willing that they should do so.

The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois; and it was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There is another amendment which I think my friend will be as willing to agree to as he has been to this amendment. It is provided that as soon as this bridge shall be completed for the passage of vehicles, &c., they shall be allowed to charge a toll. But there is no way in which that is to be determined; nothing is said about who is to determine that fact.

Mr. INGERSOLL. If no one can cross the bridge of course they cannot be made to pay any toll.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Let the gentleman hear me. We ought to provide, before these parties shall be allowed to charge this toll, that their road shall be completed. I move to amend section five, so it will read as follows:

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That as soon as the chief engineer of the Army shall certify to the Secretary of War that said bridge is so far completed as to be ready, fit, and convenient for the passage of persons, animals, and vehicles, the said lessees, their successors, and their legal representatives, may domand, have, and receive, in advance, the following tolls, to wit: for any foot passenger crossing on said bridge, two cents; for any horse, mule, or jack, any ox, or other horned cattle, five cents; for any vehicle drawn by one animal, fifteen cents; drawn by two animals, twenty-five cents; drawn by four animals. thirty-five cents, but no extra charge shall be made

for the driver of such vehicle; for any hog, sheep, or other live creature, one cent.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I agree to that amendment.

We ought

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. to have the certificate of some officer that it has been built before toll is collected.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the amendment will be considered as adopted. There was no objection; and it was ordered accordingly.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. After the word "cent," in the twelfth line, section five, I move to insert the following:

Which said certificate shall be published for three weeks in two daily papers in the city of Washington at the expense of this company.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I agree to that.

There being no objection the amendment was considered as adopted.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There is another amendment which I hope the gentleman will agree to, and it is this: it is required that it shall be lawful for said lessees to commute those rates to persons requiring yearly passes. Of course it would be lawful without any legislation by Congress. I want to make it obligatory. This may be a great thoroughfare across which the people from Virginia will bring their market products, and it is of great importance that they should be permitted to I want to amend the section so it will read as follows:

commute.

Provided, however, That it shall be obligatory on said lessees to commute those rates to persons requiring yearly passes at a reduction of the rates herein specified of at least twenty-five per cent.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Iobject to that. Everybody permanently located on each side of the bridge would of course come and demand their commutation passes, and the result might be a great loss to the company. There is no obligation which compels the people to go over this bridge. It is a private enterprise. These parties have already expended $250,000 on this canal and aqueduct. They do not ask any aid from the Government. The gentleınan asks something unreasonable, and I think unfair.

Mr. MULLINS. Inform me how much the Government paid toward this aqueduct? now propose to give it to this company.

We

Mr. INGERSOLL. Nothing that I know of. Mr. PAINE. I wish to offer some amendments.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I will hear them. Mr. PAINE. I move to strike out in section four these words:

And they may have such other rights and powers, and under such restrictions as at present are provided in the general railroad laws of the State of Virginia.

Inasmuch as this road comes into the District of Columbia it seems to me absurd that we should allow the State of Virginia, even if Virginia were admitted into the Union, to make laws for the road; and I, for one, cannot vote for a bill which allows Virginia to interfere in this District in this way. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will allow me to move the amendment.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I agree to that.
The amendment was adopted.

Mr. PAINE. I offer the following amendment:

Strike out the following words in reference to the connections of this railroad:

Or with any other railroad running to said city. or with any railroad running to Georgetown, in the District of Columbia.

The reason of that amendment, is that in passing this section as it now stands it will confer rights without any limit in the future. We should know what rights and powers we confer upon this company.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I agree to that. There being no objection, the amendment was considered agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER. I should like to inquire whether this is a report from a committee. Mr. INGERSOLL. It is.

Mr. BUTLER. Is the gentleman authorized to accept these amendments?

40TH CONG. 2D SESS.--No. 201.

The SPEAKER. He has not done so. They were severally agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER. I desire to ask this question: whether or not the piers and superstructure on which this railroad and bridge are to rest have not already cost the Government two million dollars nearly?

Mr. INGERSOLL. They have not.
Mr. BUTLER. How much?

Mr. INGERSOLL. All there is about that is this: during the progress of the work, some thirty years ago or more, the canal company threw a quantity of debris into the river, to some extent injuring the channel of the Potomac. A large amount of broken stone, earth, &c., accumulated, and there was complaint made with regard to it. Thereupon Congress appropriated $300,000 to the company upon condition that all that débris should be removed by the company, and that in future no more should be deposited there. At the time that appropriation was made the entire county of Alexandria, through which this canal was intended to and now does run, was within the limits of the District of Columbia, forming the territory over which Congress exercised exclusive legislation.

Mr. BUTLER. Who built these stone piers upon which the aqueduct rests mentioned in the second section? Did not Congress do that?

Mr. INGERSOLL. No, sir. The original canal company chartered by Congress received from Congress an appropriation of $300,000 upon the condition I have named; but, sir, if the Government should pay a reasonable compensation for the aqueduct which it used during the five years of the war, which it had exclusive control of, and in the use of it destroyed the canal and its franchise altogether, so that at the close of the war that property, which had cost a great many hundreds of thousands of dollars, was almost worthless, it would amount to far more than three hundred thousand dollars. The Government has almost destroyed this property without paying one dollar of compensation to the old company, and none is proposed to be paid now.

Mr. BUTLER. Why should the Govern ment pay for damages done in the State of Virginia, which was disloyal, any more than in the rest of the rebel States?

Mr. INGERSOLL. Nobody proposes to pay for damages in that or any other disloyal part of the country.

Mr. BUTLER.

That is the proposition.

Mr. INGERSOLL. No, sir; that is not the proposition before the House. I demand the previous question.

Mr. RAUM. I ask the gentleman to allow the following amendment to come in at the end of the bill:

And provided further, That Congress hereby reserves the right to regulate the tolls on said bridge.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I do not think that Congress should reserve the right to regulate a private enterprise because it happens to be a bridge across the Potomac at Georgetown any more than the right to regulate the price of calico in Massachusetts. I do not allow the amendment to be offered.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the gentleman will admit the usual provision in bills of this sort. I presume he does not intend to have it passed without such a proviso as this, which I ask to be allowed to move as an additional section:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the right is hereby reserved to Congress to amend, alter, or repeal this act.

Mr. INGERSOLL. All right.

The amendment of Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. A single question. Is it understood that the amendment in regard to tolls and commutation is pending and to be voted upon?

Mr. INGERSOLL. It is not; Mr. Speaker, my time is rapidly running away, and I cannot admit that amendment. I have yielded very liberally, but I cannot yield any further. I

demand the previous question on the bill and amendments.

On seconding the previous question there were-ayes 49, noes 28; no quorum voting. Tellers were ordered; and the Chair appointed Messrs. INGERSOLL and HUMPHREY.

The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes sixty-four, noes not counted. So the previous question was seconded. The main question was then ordered. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the yeas and nays on ordering the preamble to the bill to be engrossed.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The preamble was ordered to be engrossedayes 57, noes 40.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. INGERSOLL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

NATIONAL SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY.

Mr. INGERSOLL, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 579) supplemental to an act to incorporate the National Safe Deposit Company of Washington, in the District of Columbia, approved January 22, 1867.

The bill was read. The first section empow ers the National Safe Deposit Company to receive on deposit from time to time such sums of money, not less than ten cents, as may be offered by tradesmen, clerks, mechanics, laborers, servants, minors, married women, and others, and to invest the same in stocks of the United States, or such other security or securities as may from time to time be authorized by the board of directors of said corporation. The corporation shall receive all sums of current money offered as aforesaid, and invest the same in the manner aforesaid, and as soon as practicable they shall allow to the depositors interest on their deposits, to be regulated by the board of directors, and they shall pay the amounts deposited, with the interest thereon, or any part thereof, not less than ten cents, to the depositors at the place of business of said corporation at any time during business hours, on demand.

The second section provides that the board of directors shall regulate the rate of interest upon deposits and publish the same annually; that interest shall not be allowed to any depositor until his deposit amounts to five dollars, the interest to be calculated by calendar months only, and no interest to be allowed for the fraction of a month; that deposits made by minors or married women may be repaid to them and their receipt shall discharge the said corporation from any further claims for sums so repaid.

The third section authorizes the company to receive and hold on deposit and in trust, estate, real and personal, including the notes, bonds, obligations, and accounts of estates and individuals and of companies and of corporations, and the same to purchase, collect, adjust, and settle, and also to sell and dispose of the same in any market in the United States or elsewhere without proceeding in law and equity, and for such price and at such times as may be agreed upon between them and parties contracting with them; that the company shall also possess and have the power to make insurance for the fidelity of persons holding places of responsibility and trust.

The fourth section authorizes the company to increase their capital stock to $500,000.

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. INGERSOLL. Certainly.

Mr. GARFIELD. If this bill is merely to provide for safe deposit, it seems to me perfectly proper; but as I caught the reading of the bill, it authorizes them to do a broker's business and insurance business. I did not

hear the bill very distinctly, and I would like to ask whether the bill does allow a broker's business to be worked in under the charter which this bill grants?

Mr. INGERSOLL. There is nothing intended to be "worked in."

Mr. GARFIELD.

I will take that back. I merely meant to ask whether this bill could not be so construed, or whether it may not be so intended, as to make this a brokers' company? Perhaps it may be all right.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I will state all I know about this bill, and all that there is in it, so far as I know. I think not more than a year ago Congress passed an act chartering what is called the Washington Safe Deposit Company, like institutions having been created in nearly all the principal cities of the United States, being for the safe keeping of valuable papers or anything else of value inclosed in small compass. This corporation, chartered two years ago, went on and erected a building, within which it placed its vaults of the most superior kind, and engaged in the business specified in the charter. The company has been in operation now for something like two years; it has conducted its business in the most satisfactory manner. Yet, it being a new business, an experiment, it has barely managed, with the best of management, to pay its expenses, although it is composed of perhaps the best men in the community in a business sense. They now ask that their authority shall be extended so as to embrace the receiving on deposit of small sums of money; enlarging the power of that institution to some extent to that enjoyed by savingsbanks.

Mr. PRUYN. Will the gentleman allow me to make a single remark?

Mr. UPSON. Is this a unanimous report of the committee?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I think so; with the exception of one member, perhaps.

Mr. PRUYN. Will the gentleman yield to

me now?

Mr. INGERSOLL. For a moment, yes. Mr. PRUYN. I have looked over this bill hastily, and I think several of its provisions are very proper. But there are some things mingled with the good which I think should not be there.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Then move to strike them out.

Mr. PRUYN. I refer among other things to a provision giving to this company power to insure the faithful discharge of duties and trusts, connected with the power to exercise the rights of savings-banks. Now, these two things should not be coupled together; no savings-banks should incur such risks. I therefore move to strike out that part of the bill which authorizes this company to make insurances; in fact, I move to strike out the entire third section.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I am willing to have that portion stricken out to which the gentleman objects, relating to insurance.

Mr. PRUYN. That section embraces two things; one is authorizing this company, now made a savings-bank, to act as general agents for buying and selling property of all kinds; the other is authorizing this savings-bank to insure the fidelity of persons holding places of trust and profit. Now, it strikes me that these two things are quite incompatible with the exercise of the power of a savings bank. Mr. BOUTWELL. Is not this a savings bank already?

Mr. INGERSOLL. It is not. Mr. BOUTWELL. What is it? Mr. INGERSOLL. It is a safe deposit company, and nothing else.

Mr. PRUYN. I think it is a highly respectable and well managed institution.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I will accept so much of the gentleman's motion as refers to the insurance power of this company.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I have an objection to the details of this bill, and to the whole bill. Mr. INGERSOLL. I do not yield to the gentleman to argue against the bill.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Then I hope the House will vote down this bill, for it contains propositions for different kinds of business, wholly incompatible with each other, and such as we should not pass in any bill.

Mr. INGERSOLL. It may be that the Republic will be overthrown if this bill should pass. I call the previous question upon it.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Are we to have no time in which to discuss this bill?

Mr. INGERSOLL. There are but three minutes of the morning hour left, and it may be that this is the last of my political existence, at least so far as the Committee for the District of Columbia is concerned.

Mr. MAYNARD. I think the gentleman should allow an amendment to this bill, providing that the gross receipts of this company shall be taxed the same as the gross receipts of express companies are now taxed.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I have no objection to that.

Mr. MAYNARD. Then I move the amendment I have indicated.

Mr. ALLISON. What does the gentleman mean by gross receipts?

Mr. MAYNARD. That is a term well understood in revenue laws.

The amendment of Mr. MAYNARD was then agreed to.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I now call the previous question.

The question was taken upon seconding the previous question; and upon a division there were-ayes 30, noes 38; no quorum voting.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired, and this bill goes over until the morning hour of to-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate, pursuant to request, returned to the House the joint resolution (H. R. No. 291) giving additional compensation to certain employés of the civil service of the Government at Washington.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed a joint resolution (S. R. No. 100) for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and steam machinery, in which the concurrence of the House was requested.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

Mr. HOPKINS, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled an act (H. R. No. 870) to remove the political disabilities from Roderick R. Butler, of Tennessee; when the Speaker signed the same.

UNITED STATES MINT.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a letter from the Treasurer of the United States Mint, recommending on increase of the salaries of four clerks employed in said Mint, with the further recommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury; which were referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT.

Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to call up my motion to reconsider.

The SPEAKER. It is not now in order. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I rise to make a motion that is in order. I move that we proceed to the consideration of the business upon the Speaker's table.

The motion was disagreed to.

Mr. ELIOT. Under the order of the House this bill is to be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. I ask the Chair if that is not so?

The SPEAKER. It is to be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. ELIOT. What is the rule in reference to the consideration of the bill in the House as in Committee of the Whole?

The SPEAKER. When the House resolves to consider this or any other bill in the House as in Committee of the Whole it is understood to mean that it shall be under the five-minutes debate. If the bill were ordered to be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole without limitation, then the hour debate would apply.

Mr. ELIOT. My understanding of the rule at the time the motion was made was that the bill should be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole, and that general debate was to be allowed; and after that was closed the bill should be open for five-minutes debate. Under that impression I supposed it would be competent for me to submit some general considerations on this subject, vindicating the action of the committee from suggestions made in the report which has been submitted by the minority of the committee.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that he will submit the question to the House for them to determine, as they made the order. When appropriation bills are ordered to be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole it has always been understood that they were to be under the five minutes debate.

Mr. GARFIELD. I understood the Speaker to announce the other day, when it was agreed to consider this in Committee of the Whole, that the five-minutes rule would prevail. We are all aware of that.

The SPEAKER. That is the general usage. If the House understood it differently they can manifest it.

Mr. SCHENCK. Why should not the rule apply in this as in any other case?

Mr. ELIOT. I wish to say the construction now given to the rule is different from what I supposed the rule was. I am always glad to get rid of the necessity for making speeches.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts is familiar with the usage, and during the many years he has been here he cannot recollect an instance where, under like circumstances, there has been anything but the fiveminutes debate.

Mr. ELIOT. I do not question the construction of the Chair.

The SPEAKER. It is not the Chair's construction, but that has been the usage.

Mr. PAINE. Does it require unanimous consent for the gentleman to make his remarks? The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it does. Mr. PAINE. I hope the gentleman will not be deprived of the rights that he could

Mr. ELIOT. I will not ask it.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. LAFLIN was granted leave of absence for ten days.

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL. The SPEAKER. The House resumes the consideration of House bill No. 1046, making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works, and for other purposes, on which the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. PAINE. I desire the gentleman should have an opportunity to make the remarks he has prepared. I was about to make the motion unless unanimous consent was given. I hope it will be.

Mr. SPALDING. I am always pleased to hear the gentleman from Massachusetts, but I must object.

Mr. ELIOT. Then I will avail myself as well as I can of the privilege allowed me under the five-minutes rule. Of course I shall be unable to make some statements which it seems to me proper should be made to show the propriety of favorable action upon this bill. I suppose the only thing to be done now is to

have the bill read item by item under the fiveminutes rule.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will have five minutes on every clause of the bill.

Mr. MAYNARD. I suggest that several of the items be read, and then that the gentleman make a five-minutes speech; then several more of the items and another five-minutes speech. Mr. ELIOT. It is hard to cut up a speech into five-minutes sections. [Laughter.]

Mr. CULLOM. I would inquire if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] is not willing to allow the gentleman from Massachusetts half an hour.

Mr. SPALDING. Not six minutes, Mr. Speaker. I will give him five. [Laughter.] Mr. ELIOT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not, under the leave which has been granted me, take advantage of the courtesy of the House, but I will try to confine myself within the thirty minutes.

A MEMBER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] refuses to withdraw his objection.

Mr. ELIOT. I beg pardon. I will then come under the five-minutes rule.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I rise to inquire whether any portion of the bill has been read?

The SPEAKER. It has been supposed to be read in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Can the gentleman from Massachusetts speak before any portion is read? The SPEAKER. If the gentleman insists, the Chair will have the first clause read.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I insist on following the rule, because the Chair always insists upon it when I am out of order. [Laughter.]

The SPEAKER. The gentleman is rarely out of order; whenever he is the Chair will rule so. The Clerk will report the bill until some member proposes an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums of money be, and are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended under the direction and superintendence of the Secretary of War, for the repair, preservation, and completion of the following works heretofore commenced under the authority of law, and for the other purposes hereinafter named: That is to say.

Mr. KELSEY. I rise to a point of order. The bill is not reported in accordance with the rules for reporting appropriation bills. It does not state the aggregate amount of money appropriated at the end of the bill.

Mr. BLAINE. That applies to the Committee on Appropriations only.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman will refer to my substitute he will see that I have conformed to the rule.

Mr. ELIOT. The objection comes too late. The SPEAKER. The rule to which the gentleman from New York alludes refers exclusively to the Committee on Appropriations, which did not report this bill.

Mr. ELIOT. It is to be reported by paragraphs, and no paragraph has yet been passed. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the bill by paragraphs.

The Clerk read the first two items of appropriation, as follows:

For improvement of Superior City harbor, in the State of Wisconsin, $30,000.

For improvement of Wisconsin river, $40,000. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to strike out that paragraph.

Mr. ELIOT. The gentleman from Illinois does not propose to defend his motion, and I rise for the purpose of opposing it.

The SPEAKER. He waives his right by resuming his seat. The gentleman from Massachusetts can now have an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. ELIOT. The appropriation which is now the subject of consideration is for the improvement of Wisconsin river, in the State of Wisconsin. It rests, Mr. Speaker-and the committee have directed the report to be made upon the recommendation of the War Department, and upon arguments which have been submitted to the committee through the Legislature of Wisconsin, by a memorial which has

been printed and laid before the members of the House, stating very fully the objects of the appropriation and the great importance of the appropriation to the internal commerce of the country. I have in my hand the memorial from the Legislature which states the character of the improvement itself, the importance of it to the States in that section of the Union, the growing commerce of that region, and the plan of improvement which the Government, under the authority of surveys made by order of the House, has determined upon. I had a long interview with the distinguished engineer who has had the examination of this work in charge, at the instance of the chairman of the committee and of my friend from Wisconsin, [Mr. WASHBURN,] who is more particularly interested in this locality, and I learned from him the arguments upon which the propriety of this appropriation rests. The work itself is one which has to be done if the Government of the United States proposes to continue the policy which has been laid down for the last three or four years in regard to internal improvements. It is not an exceptional case. It rests upon the same general grounds upon which all the appropriations which are asked for in this bill rest. I do not know whether the gentleman proposes to question the propriety of the policy. In former times, you know very well, sir, when the southern platforms ignored the power under the Constitution of making these appropriations, it was very difficult for the House, under the twothirds rule, to get before the House a bill of this description. Do you not remember, Mr. Speaker, some eight years ago how earnestly the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] tried to get out of the Committee of the Whole a river and harbor bill for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of the House? There are not a great many of those now present who were in the House. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] and yourself, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] my colleague upon my right, [Mr. DAWES,] the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH.] the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MOORHEAD,] and my friend from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] were here. We all witnessed the earnestness with which the gentleman from Illinois, who was then on the Committee on Commerce, struggled to get the bill, which I now hold in my hand, out from the Committee of the Whole. It was opposed upon the ground that the whole matter was outside the range of our action, and although upon that question there was a very large majority in favor of the measure, yet by a vote of 105 to 61 it was defeated.

Now, sir, since 1865, there have been two bills reported from the Committee on Commerce, with the assent of the whole committee --not of gentlemen of one political character, but of all political shades-for the purpose of improving the rivers and harbors of the country. The bills met the approval of the gentleman from Illinois. And yet at that time we had just come out of the war and were some hundreds of millions of dollars more in debt than we are now. But the representatives of the people in Congress recognized the duty which their constituents imposed upon them, to see that the internal improvements of the country were so made as that the cereal products of the West could find, in some cheap mode, transportation to the East. It is in the line of that policy that this appropriation bill is offered.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to amend the paragraph by striking out "forty" and inserting "twenty." This is an appropri ation which I would be glad to see made if I thought the work practicable. It is an appropriation in which my own constituents are interested, and I may say deeply interested, and if I could see that there was anything prac tical in it I would be willing to vote for the appropriation. But I think I know something about this Wisconsin river. I have lived in the

neighborhood of it for more than twenty-eight years, and I know that it has always been considered by the people there that the Wisconsin river is not practicable for steamboat navigation. Such is the treacherous character of the channel, sand bars being formed, and there being sudden rises and falls of the river, that before any railroad bridges were built, and in the face of every effort to navigate that river in order to bring its commerce down the Mississippi to Dubuque and Galena, we found it necessary to abandon all attempts.

At the last session of Congress an appropriation of $40,000 was made for this purpose. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] says that I assented to that river and harbor bill. I do not know but that I may have given it a sort of assent. I had very little to do with it. I was sick, and I believe when the bill passed I was not present. But I find that there is an appropriation here of $40,000 for the improvement of the Wisconsin river.

Well, sir, I am sorry to say that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] did not read the report of General Warren on this subject. According to that report this improvement which we are now asked to initiate will cost, before it can ever amount to anything, from two million three hundred and sixty thousand to three million five hundred and forty thousand dollars. And let me say here that I do not believe there is money enough, and will scarcely be money enough to spare in the Treasury for the next ten years, to make that river navigable, unless you construct a canal from its mouth, where it empties into the Mississippi river, up as far as the portage. And yet it is here proposed, in the present condition of the public Treasury, to commence this improvement which, according to the lowest estimate of General Warren, will cost the Government some three hundred and sixty thousand dollars. I say that we cannot afford to undertake works of this kind, which do not promise us more and greater results.

The idea has been practically abandoned of making this a navigable river. If gentlemen will be good enough to read the report of General Warren, they will see that a great deal of it refers to bridges that have been built over the river, and to the cost of dredging away the obstructions which those bridges have made. And then in addition to that he says it will require an annual appropriation of from twenty to thirty thousand dollars.

I have no time, in five minutes, to refer much to the general subject of river and harbor improvements. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] says I was at a certain time in favor of river and harbor improvements. I was; but it was at a time when we had money in the Treasury, at a time when the people were not loaded down with debt. I was then willing to make liberal and proper appropriations. But times have changed, and I confess that my notions upon the subject have changed to some extent. I do not believe, to the extent I formerly did, in making appropriations for every object of the kind in the country; $20,000 for a harbor here, $40,000 for a harbor in some other place, and $50,000 for some other harbor, and so on. I do not now believe in making these appropriations for local objects, where they have no public interest.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ALLISON. I desire to say but a word or two in reply to the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE.] I am surprised that he should be found opposing this particular appropriation in this bill. There is no proposition contained in this bill for the improvement of any harbor, or for any purpose whatever, that affects the interests of so many people as this very appropriation for the improvement of the Wisconsin river. In the brief space of five minutes allotted to me I cannot enter upon au argument upon this subject, but can only urge upon members the general statement of its importance to the grain growing region of the West, to every farmer who cultivates the soil of four States adjacent to this improvement.

The gentleman says that the Wisconsin river cannot be made navigable. In that he disagrees with the best engineering talent of this nation. This river has been examined over and over again by the engineer bureau of the War Department, and they all say that it can be made navigable. This appropriation of $40,000 is but a small one, and is really intended to verify the statements made by those distinguished engineers, and to prepare the work so that improvement upon a scale commensurate with our necessities may be entered upon in the future.

I tell the gentleman from Illinois that not only his constituents, but the people of four States of the West are vitally interested in the progress of this work. It will cheapen the expense of transportation from the Mississippi river to the lakes at least thirty per cent. Every article that is raised in the northwestern States will be transported up and down that river if it is properly improved. Every man who raises a bushel of grain in Iowa, Wiscon sin, and Minnesota, is now compelled to pay tribute to the great railroad corporations of that region.

No man I ever heard of before ever said that this was not a convenient water communication. Vessels have passed up and down that river for years. It is a mistake to say that this river cannot be made navigable by means of a reasonable appropriation expended upon it. It is true that General Warren suggests it may cost from two and a half to three and a half million dollars to make this work complete.

Now, I know this does not appear to be an Illinois river; it is a Wisconsin river in this case. But though it does lie north of the State of Illinois, yet I would call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that there is a vast region of country north of this Wisconsin river, and west of it, and south of it, which will be benefited by this improvement.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Why does the gentleman refer to the Illinois river?

Mr. ALLISON. I referred to the fact that this is a Wisconsin river. And the people of a large region of country are interested in the improvement of this river, and desire to avail themselves of a cheap water communication by way of the lakes to the Atlantic sea-board. If that appropriation is not to be made, then there ought not to be one single item of appropriation made in this bill. I regard it as the most important appropriation made there, not because it affects my constituents alone, but because it affects that great grain-growing region of country. It affects the price of grain in New England and New York, and the price to the consumers of all articles transported from the East to the West and the West to the East.

This Wisconsin river passes a point where there is a canal only one mile and a half in length, and that connects the Fox river with the Wisconsin river. It is acknowledged to be the cheapest means of communication between the Mississippi river and the lakes by way of Green bay; and I ask gentlemen to remember that I speak here not only on behalf of four million people who cultivate the soil, but on behalf of the toiling millions of the eastern States who are consumers of our products.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I move to increase the amount to $50,000.

Mr. Speaker, the Wisconsin river, being a large portion of it in my district, and there being a large number of people living upon it, and being useful, indeed, in navigation, I feel bound to say a few words to sustain this appropriation. Now, sir, the object of this appropriation and the object of the improvement of the Wisconsin river is to give complete navigation from the Mississippi river to the lakes. This is to create a ship-canal between the Mississippi river and the lakes. It is alleged the Wisconsin river is impracticable and cannot be

made navigable for that purpose. I am not here prepared to say whether it can or cannot. It is the opinion of General Warren that by the expenditure of the sum of $3,000,000 it can be made so navigable. If it can be made so navigable no appropriation of money could be made so advantageous to the country as this, for I could easily demonstrate that the country could save $3,000,000 annually by the aid of a ship-canal from the Mississippi river to the lakes. The distance is some two hundred miles. I will say further that you have appropriated to the Fox river for the purpose of improvement a very large amount of land. The Fox river has been improved. Slack-water navigation has been created; and there is a canal from Wisconsin river and the slack-water navigation to Green bay.

Mr. WOODWARD. How do you propose to improve the Wisconsin river?

General

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. Warren, in the report which he has made on the subject, shows you how he proposes to do it. He proposes to improve the bed of the Wisconsin river not by a canal, but by a system of dams.

Mr. WOODWARD. There is no water there. Mr. ALLISON. There is plenty of it. Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I will state the character of the Wisconsin river.

Mr. WOODWARD. I know something about this river, and I say there is no water there.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says he knows something about that river. That may be, but I know something about it. I have lived near its banks longer than I dare say, twenty-five years at least. I know it is a very bad river, not for the want of water, for there is abundance of water, but it has a very wide, sandy bed and the channel is constantly shifting There is enough of water if you will confine it. You may know there is water enough when I tell you that the river is three or four hundred miles in length and drains an extensive region of country. It is the largest river in Wisconsin. There is abundance of water if it can only be controlled. This bill proposes rather as an experiment an appropriation of $40,000. If it appropriated $3,000,000 I would not vote for it, because I am by no means certain on the plan recommended by General Warren successful navigation can be obtained. But I do desire this appropriation of $40,000 should be made.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. For what purpose? Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. As an experiment.

ment.

Here the hammer fell.] Mr. COBB. I rise to oppose the amendI understand from the report of the engineer, General Warren, that $40,000 is all that it is desirable to have appropriated at this time, and that it is contemplated to use that money by way of experiment by constructing a wing-dam to test the practicability of the improvement of this river. Therefore I oppose the increase as moved by my colleague. But my principal object in seeking the floor is to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] in regard to its being conceded by everybody that this river is not susceptible of improvement so as to make it navigable. I think the gentleman is mistaken in his assertion. A considerable portion of this stream passes through the district which I have the honor to represent, and I know that it has always been the opinion of those best acquainted with the stream that a very trifling outlay of money judiciously applied would make it navigable the year round. is true that the navigation of it has been abandoned; I have seen a great many steamboats navigating it in years gone by, and it has always been the opinion not only of engineers, but of the numerous raftsmen who have navigated the stream since the settlement of the country, that it is capable of being made navigable all the time. There is plenty of water, as has been observed, but being spread over a wide bed the depth is so shallow that sand bars are

It

formed which are constantly shifting, so that an acquaintance with the channel of the stream at one time does not enable the pilots to understand it at another. But notwithstanding all this, engineers give it as their opinion-and in this they are confirmed by the raftsmenthat by the system of wing-dams at a great many points in the river this difficulty may be overcome; and I believe such will be the result. I hope the appropriation will not be stricken out.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I move to make it $30,000 instead of $40,000. There are two or three questions about making this appropriation which I think the House will do well to consider. In the first place, the friends of this improvement say that the $40,000 proposed to be given here is only a small beginning, and that it will require $2,000,000 more to accomplish anything. Now, I think in giving the $40,000 we determine the question whether we are to give $2,000,000 hereafter, or to lose the $40,000 altogether. It is another question whether this improvement can ever be made, even if we determine to give the $2,000,000. Gentlemen who advocate it say that there is a very large quantity of water; that it is a very wide river bed; and that sand bars are formed which shift from one side to the other constantly, forming new channels. They propose, therefore, to have the river bed walled in and in some way confined. Now, it is very uncertain-and the friends of this appropriation will judge whether it is not so-whether if these $2,000,000 are finally appropriated the stream will after all be rendered navigable.

But, sir, back of all this there lies a very important consideration, This stream is all in one State. Almost all of it lies in the single congressional district of my friend from Wisconsin, [Mr. COBB,] as he says.

Mr. COBB. A large portion of it, I said.

Mr. SCOFIELD. A large portion of it, then, lies in my friend's district. Another small portion runs through the district of his colleague, [Mr. HOPKINS, ] and I suppose my friend behind me [Mr. PAINE] will claim some portion of it in his. But it is all in the State of Wisconsin. Now, sir, we have in the State of Pennsylvania just as large an improvement as that which is here contemplated. We have chartered a company and they have gone on and improved the Monongahela river; and other States are making similar improvements in the navigation of rivers lying within their limits. It is different when you come to a large river like the Mississippi or the Missouri or the Ohio. But when you take a comparatively small stream, which is very difficult of navigation and uncertain in regard to its improvement, although the State in which it lies may be benefited by the improvement, I submit whether this House should at this time enter upon the experiment of improving the navigation. Because if we appropriate this $40,000 we do enter upon it. And I submit to gentlemen who have matters in this bill about which there is no doubt, whether we ought to endanger the passage of just measures or absolutely necessary measures by putting in so many appropriations for new works, at a time when our national debt is every day increasing and our taxes are every day diminishing.

Mr. COBB. I would like to ask the gentleman this question: whether the improvement of the harbor at Erie is one of those just measures to which he refers?

Mr. HOPKINS obtained the floor. Mr. SCOFIELD. Allow me a moment to answer the question.

Mr. HOPKINS. Very well.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I say to the gentleman that I do not want to mix up any interest I may have in the bill with that of anybody else. I want to vote fairly and honestly on each measure. Gentlemen may retaliate on me or on the interests of my district if they see fit, but I know my friends from Wisconsin are above