any feeling of that kind. I shall vote on this question according to my judgment, and if, when the appropriation for the harbor of Erie comes up, that appropriation, if it is honest and just, and shall be defeated because I have fought against other measures, then my constituents will suffer.

Mr. HOPKINS. I quite agree with the gen tleman from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] that this appropriation is, for its amount, more important in its character than any other one appropriation in the bill. I have not the statistics at hand, and if I had I should not have time to use them; but the territory tributary to this river raises to-day of wheat alone one hundred million bushels; and that amount of grain, which is mainly transported to the East, and from there to Europe, passes over the States of Wisconsin and Illinois upon railroads at an average cost of fifteen cents per bushel. This improvement, if completed, even at the cost estimated by the engineer department, of $3,000,000, will save that amount of transportation of grain, not only to the people of lowa and Wisconsin and Illinois and Minnesota, but will save it to the consumers. The people of the East are as much interested in this improvement as we are in the West. The great want of the West is cheaper transportation of our surplus products. That country has already become the granary of this continent, and is destined to become ere long the granary of the world. The man who puts his finger or his foot on these works of internal improvement, which are so necessary to the development of that country, does an act of injustice to himself and his constituents and to the nation at large. This river is susceptible of being made navigable. It has a volume of water to-day that, if properly controlled, would float any boat that now runs on the Mississippi above Galena, and between that point and St. Paul. I have lived near this river for ten years, and nearer to it than my friend from Galena, and I assert that it is capable of being made navigable at a less expense than any other water navigation we shall ever have between the Mississippi river and the lakes.

Mr. MILLER. I understood the gentleman's colleague to say that this appropriation of $40,000 was merely to test an experi

ment.

Mr. HOPKINS. This appropriation of $40,000 is asked for at the suggestion of the engineer department for the purpose of building some wing-dams to control the current of the river, and see if that is the best way of improving it. It is undoubtedly the cheapest way, and if you will permit them to test it, we shall get an improvement which the gentleman from Pennsylvania, with all his ideas of econ omy, for which I honor him, and the gentlemau from Illinois, will be proud of as citizens of the United States.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I understand the gentleman to say that this is the most feasible project for water communication between the Mississippi river and the lakes. I want to inquire if Rock river, which runs through the States of Wisconsin and Illinois, is not more feasible?

Mr. HOPKINS. I will say to my friend from Illinois that I am myself and my constituents are more directly interested in the Rock rives than in the Wisconsin river. I should be glad to see Rock river improved, and I expect to live to see the day, if I live to the common age of man, when not only the Wisconsin river will be made navigable, but Rock river and the Illinois river also; and with those three great navigable rivers running through that territory which produces so much, we shall have what the West wants and needs.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. SCOFIELD. I withdraw my amend

ment.

Mr. DELANO. I move to reduce the amount to $5,000, not for the purpose of occupying the time of the House in reference to this particular item of the bill, but to direct the attention

of the House to some general views and ideas connected with the bill.

This bill appropriates for lake harbors, $811,000; for close harbor, $318,000; for the improvement of rivers, $2,741,000; for the purchase of certain localities, and a certain appropriation for the Portland and Louisville canal, $2,017,000, and for the continuation of surveys, $260,000; in all, $6,141,000. It will be observed by those who analyze this bill that there are thirty-two lake harbors appropriated for; twenty-seven rivers appropriated for, and ten close harbors appropriated for. It is so arranged as to reach perhaps the individual interests of some seventy members of this House. It may be set down, to begin with, as an omnibus that a great many people can ride in.

Now, sir, if we were in a condition financially to commence this scheme of improvements, I am not prepared to say that I should be among those who would oppose it. But we have just crushed out a rebellion without regard to cost; we have nearly got through the work of restoration and reorganization; and if there is anything left for the Republican party now to do, which in point of importance is higher and above all other things, it is a proper and economical administration of this Government. We might part with this $6,000,000 for the purposes contemplated by this bill, without laying a burden upon the people which they could not endure; but we would be inaugurating a scheme which would lead to the expenditure | of untold millions in the future.

In reference to the particular item immediately under consideration, the friends of the appropriation say that it is only an experiment to test the manner and practicability of carrying out the project of connecting the waters of the Mississippi river and the great lakes.

There is another project of connecting the waters of the Mississippi and the lakes by an improvement extending through the State of Illinois. And the people of Ohio desire to improve the connection they have made of the waters of Lake Erie and the Ohio river. But are we prepared to enter upon this scheme at this time? Is it just to the constituencies whose interests it is our duty to protect for us to pass such a bill as this at this time? In almost all cases covered by this bill the appropriations here proposed are but entering wedges to secure a way into the Treasury. The time may come when these appropriations will be required, but I deny that now is the fit and proper time to enter upon this policy of public improvements. At the proper time, when it is in order, I will offer an amendment to this bill, proposing a certain amount of limited appropriations for the preservation of such works as we have now in hand but which need a little more assistance, and leave this entire policy for action at some future day when our constituencies will be better prepared to bear the burden.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT. We might as well meet this question now as at any time. And perhaps the particular appropriation now under consideration furnishes as good an occasion for the contest which it is evident this bill must meet as any item will afford. Sir, it is because these improvements are demanded by the people; it is because these improvements, although they cost money, are among the expenditures which are productive, or while they cost money return into the Treasury more money over and over again than they cost; it is because of those things that the Committee on Commerce instructed the reporting of this bill. Some of these measures are to a certain extent experimental. How can it be otherwise? There is no question that the improvementis demanded; there is no question that the interests of the country require it, and that a large amount of revenue will be produced to the country if the improvement shall be made. An appropriation is made at the beginning for the purpose of seeing how it shall best be done.

And upon this the question comes up whether,

considering the present condition of the Treasury, it is or is not best for us to stop where we are. If it is, then let this bill be laid on the table. If the members of this Congress are prepared to go back to their constituents and say that because of the fact that we have just passed through a long and expensive war, and because we have a large debt to pay, therefore we have concluded upon the whole to let the whole system of internal improvements rest where it now is, be it so. But I predict that it would be the most disastrous policy we could pursue. This is no mere party question. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DELANO] has analyzed this bill and found so many lake appropriations, so many river appropriations, so many appropriations upon the coast, and so many inland.

The object of the bill, sir, is to furnish ways and means by which the industries of the country can be made operative, by which they can work so as to make the opportunities which God in his providence gave to us effective and available.

Mr. Speaker, of what value is it to us because in one season at the West an amount of grain can be raised which puts to shame the accumulations of Pharaoh in the days when the brethren of Joseph went down into Egypt to save their father from starvation? Of what avail is it, sir, if the constituents of the gentleman from Illinois have got to burn their corn for fuel, because they cannot convey it to market?

If we are to be told because the Treasury is in the condition in which it is we are to wait year after year until the time shall come, as the gentleman says in his report, when labor is lower, when money is more plenty, why, sir, let me say before that time has come, if these appropriations are made and these improvements carried on, the amount of money put into the Treasury by reason of these improvements will over and over again pay the expenses to which we are now subject.

Sir, we have got to appropriate four or five million dollars annually as one of the natural, fair, ordinary expenses of this Government if we do our duty as the legislators of this country, in which God has permitted us to live; and it is in vain to single out this item or that item for the purpose of raising on it a general argument against appropriations of this kind, unless, indeed, gentlemen propose to stop where we

are.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this special appropriation. The Wisconsin river, as you know very well, enters into the Mississippi. The Fox river enters into Green bay. The object of the appropriation is to make such communication between Green bay and the Mississippi river as that the whole production there can be carried down to the Mississippi river, so along down to St. Louis and New Orleans and out to the ocean; or the other way, as my friend from Wisconsin says. This is the early part of the improvement.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ALLISON withdrew his amendment. Mr. PILE. I move to make it $50,000 instead of $40,000.

Mr. Speaker, the wealth of this country, as of all others, arises from production, and production can only be stimulated and kept up by rapid and cheap means of interchanging commodities for the transportation of the productions of one locality to another, for the transportation of productions in excess to where they are wanted. These great avenues of industry have received from all wise governments careful consideration and encouragement. Until a very short period river and ocean and wagon transportation have been the principal medium of interchange of commod ities from one locality to another. Recently the era of railroads commenced. They have been built in this country as well as in all other civilized countries; but it has been demonstrated that the railroad transportation is used for the interchange of light commodities, and that we must at last fall back and rely upon

the river and ocean for the transportation of heavy commodities and the large agricultural products of the country. What the Mississippi valley needs, that wonderful region of the country, unequaled by any upon the globe, what it needs to stimulate its production is cheap transportation; and for that there must be competing lines of water communication. The Mississippi river must be improved, and its mouth and channels and outlets opened and deepened, affording constant and ready communication with the ocean. It is equally necessary we should provide for communication northward to the lakes, so that in the summer months it may be a perfect line of water navigation. Then the productions of the Mississippi valley will be transported either way cheaply and readily.

In the light of this fact, which bears directly upon this specific improvement that is now before the House, I think an appropriation of $40,000 as an experiment to test whether the plan submitted by General Warren, the engineer, is practicable, should be made without hesitation. It is true that if this river can be improved its ultimate improvement will require an expenditure of two million or two million five hundred thousand dollars; but if the experiment proves that it cannot be so improved as to render it navigable then the expenditure of $40,000 does not necessarily entail an expenditure of the larger sum.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Does not the gentleman know that we appropriated $40,000 last year?

I

Mr. WOODWARD. I rise to express a few thoughts on the general subject before the House. I am opposed to all these appropriations. The rivers of the country are provided by nature undoubtedly for the transportation of the products of our country; and no more legitimate work can be proposed than to improve their navigation so as to enable people to get the products of their labor to market. I agree to that, and I agree with those western gentlemen who magnify the importance of that garden of the world in which they live; for such I believe it will come to be realized by the world, and that before many years. look forward to the time when people abroad will depend upon the great West for the bread they eat; and I wish the people of this country generally would turn their attention to farming more than they are doing. I wish some politicians would turn farmers. It is undoubtedly true that the products of these fertile lands are to be carried to market principally by water, for they will not bear transportation by any more artificial communications. These things are all true, and the argument so far as these facts are concerned is with the gentlemen who support this appropriation.

But here is what I want to say: the Wisconsin river, if I understand it, rises, flows, and empties in the State of Wisconsin. Is not that the fact?

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. That is so. Mr. WOODWARD. Now, sir, upon what principle does that State come to the Congress of the United States and ask us to vote the money of the people of the United States in an abortive attempt to make that river navigable by steamboats? If the descending navigation of the Wisconsin be not sufficient for the people who live along its banks they should do what we have done in Pennsylvania who live along the Susquehanna-take our own funds and improve our own navigation for the purpose of carrying to market the products of our own industry. That is what they ought to do. The Susquehanna rises in New York, runs into Pennsylvania, runs back into New York, and then again into and through Pennsylvania, and empties into Chesapeake bay, in the State of Maryland. And yet you do not find the people along that river coming to Congress and asking an appropriation of money to improve it. On the contrary, we have got a canal, if not more than one, along the river, constructed by State taxes, out of State funds, under State authority. There it is, and the

people have derived those advantages from it which gentlemen truly depict as likely to result from the improvement of the Wisconsin river. I agree that that river should be improved, but I maintain it should be improved by the people who are interested in it, as in the older parts of the United States they have improved the rivers upon which they depended. In a certain sense, it is true, everybody is interested.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. The gentleman insists that it should be improved by the State of Wisconsin. Would he also insist that when it is improved by that State and made a thoroughfare from the Mississippi to Lake Michigan the public should have the ben

efit of it?

Mr. WOODWARD. Most assuredly. Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. The public outside of Wisconsin?

Mr. WOODWARD. The State of Wisconsin cannot shut the people of the United States off from communication through that river.

Mr. VAN TRUMP. If my honorable friend from Pennsylvania will allow me, I can add an important fact to the argument he is now making in regard to the State improvement of the Susquehanna river. Some forty years ago the State of Ohio, then in her infancy, projected and completed, without any appeal to the Federal Treasury for aid, a magnificent canal, running from Lake Erie to the Ohio river, a distance of more than three hundred miles, at a cost of several million dollars. And yet it today accommodates the commerce not only of Ohio, but of New York, Pennsylvania, and the New England States on the northeast, as well as of Kentucky, Tennessee, and other southern States on the southwest. Let other States, in regard to improvements confined within their own borders, go and do likewise, and then they will have some semblance of claim to ask Ohio, through her Representatives in Congress, to appropriate the money of the people at large to new local improvements.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. The State of Ohio taxes the public well, too, for the accommodation.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WOODWARD] allow me to ask him a question? It is rare that we get an opportunity thus to do it. While I am with him in the proposition

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PAINE obtained the floor.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I hope, by unanimous consent, the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be allowed five minutes to complete his remarks.

Mr. WOODWARD. I have never yet had time to get an entire idea before the House under the five-minutes rule. [Laughter.]

Mr. PAINE. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that the gentleman shall proceed.

No objection was made.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Then I will finish the question I was propounding to the gentleman. The gentleman says that this Wisconsin river ought to be improved. He admits all that gentlemen claim for it, except the source from which they should derive the means to improve the river, and he tells us about the Susquehanna as being of great importance to the States of New York and Pennsylvania. Now, I ask the gentleman if there is not in this very bill an appropriation for the improvement of the Susquehanna, and is the gentleman going to oppose it?

Mr. WOODWARD. I am. I did not know there was such an appropriation in the bill. But I tell the gentleman that I am going to vote against that very appropriation, and I will vote against it as heartily as I will vote against the appropriation for the Wisconsin river. I am in earnest about this matter. The gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] who first rose to oppose this bill, touched the real core of this question. This country is in no condition to waste money on these abortive attempts to improve rivers that their Maker made innavigable, and which man never can make more

than navigable for descending navigation. That is all you can do unless you make a canal, and if you want a canal let the State of Wisconsin make it. But the gentleman from Illinois touched the real sensitive nerve of this whole subject when he told us that in the present financial condition of the country-and I believe he said to which the Republican party had brought the country-we were in no condition to appropriate money for this purpose.

Now, I wish to respond with all my heart to that sentiment. Look at what has been passing here before us for the last few days. A bill was brought in by the Committee of Ways and Means to raise revenue to carry on this Government; a bill which shows that the whole ingenuity of that committee was exhausted to find objects of taxation; a bill which will bring the Government down upon the industries of the people as it never was brought down upon them before, and will grind the poor of this country into deeper dust than they have ever been ground down to before, and that for the main purpose of paying the interest on our bonds to the bondholders. While the genius, the wit, of this House is being employed necessarily to devise measures to screw money out of the people of this country to pay to the bondholders, many of whom are foreigners, I protest against a waste of these funds in an abortive attempt to improve western rivers that the western States ought to improve without coming to the General Government.

Mr. DELANO. The gentleman either misrepresents or misunderstood me. If I understood him correctly he said just now, alluding to my remarks, that I said the Republican party had brought the country into its present financial condition. I said no such thing.

Mr. WOODWARD. The gentleman speaks of misrepresentation. I have another matter, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to have an opportunity to explain, and if I had misrepresented the gentleman he would not have been the first member on this floor who has borne gross misrepresentation; but I did not allude to the gentleman. I intend no misrepresentation of any gentleman, and least of all of the gentleman from Ohio. I maintain that it is due to the people of this country that we should gather up all our energies and concentrate all our forces upon providing means for reducing and removing this national debt. Let me tell gentlemen that that debt has grown $10,000,000 in the last month.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PILE. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. PAINE. I renew it. Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake on the part of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who has just taken his seat, [Mr. WOODWARD,] as it was a mistake of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SCOFIELD,] who sits near me, to say that this is merely a Wisconsin measure, that it a local object which is to be promoted by this appropriation.

Sir, it is indeed true that this river lies wholly within the territorial limits of the State of Wisconsin. But the object of the improvement is to connect the head-waters of the Mississippi river with the chain of great lakes on our northern frontier, and although the State of Wisconsin, as I freely admit, has probably more direct interest in this improvement than any other single State, it is not true that the benefits of this appropriation will be confined to the State of Wisconsin alone. The State of Iowa has little less interest in this improvement than has the State of Wisconsin. I am not sure, sir, that the State of Iowa has not an equal or even a greater interest in it than Wisconsin. The State of Illinois is certainly very greatly inter ested in this appropriation. The agricultural exports and bulky imports of the western portion of that State will undoubtedly seek this channel, if successfully opened, as their outlet to and inlet from sea-board and foreign markets. The same will be true to some extent of the exports and imports of the State of Minnesota, and also of the States of Missouri and Nebraska.

More than that, sir, every manufacturing and commercial State between the Alleghanies and the Penobscot having an interest in the reduction of the cost of bread or the expansion of northwestern trade will see her own prosperity promptly and sensibly stimulated by this or any successful development of a water transit for agricultural products from the Northwest to the sea. It is not, then, a petty, local project. It will be no more a local improvement than is that of the Falls of St. Anthony, which is altogether within the State of Michigan, or the improvement of the St. Clair river, which touches only a single State. Why, sir, like the Niagara ship-canal, like the canal around the falls of the Ohio, this channel of trade, while situated in a single State, will bear back and forth the commerce of many States, will form a link in a great chain reaching from New York through the valley of the great lakes and the valley of the Mississippi to New Orleans. The great and rapidly growing agriculture of the Northwest must have a water outlet for its products to the sea. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WOODWARD] admitted, they will not bear the necessary cost of transportation by railway; they must be transported by water. This is not less vital to the consumer than to the producer of bread.

Look, for an illustration, at the State of the gentleman who opposes this appropriation so strenuously, the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE.] In the year 1865 his State produced over one hundred and seventy-seven million bushels of corn alone. The precise amount was one hundred and seventy-seven million ninety-five thousand eight hundred and fiftytwo bushels. That corn was worth in his State, on an average, only twenty-nine and a quarter cents per bushel, while in the six New England States, at the same time, it was worth on an average $1 19 cents per bushel, and in New York it was worth ninety cents per bushel. The difference between the aggregate value of this corn crop of 1865 on the soil of Illinois and its value in the market of New York was $116,883,262 32.

It would have cost the constituents of the gentleman from Illinois, and the other gentlemen representing that State on this floor, more to transport that corn crop alone to the New York market than the entire agricultural products of that State for 1865 were worth on the soil of the State. It would have cost more than the home value of the entire crop of Illinois, including wheat, corn, oats, potatoes, hay, and everything else raised that year by the people of that State. The entire crop of corn, wheat, rye, oats, barley, buckwheat, potatoes, tobacco, and hay, was worth at home only $116,274,321, and the difference between the home market and New York market of the corn alone was, as I said, $116,83,262 32.

And why? Because the cost of railway transportation renders it utterly impossible for his constituents and for the people of Illinois generally to transport their heavy products to the markets of the East by rail. The Northwest must have improved means of water transportation to the sea. And nature has indicated to us the great routes which we must take. A thousand miles from the Atlantic and the Mexican Gulf, the wonderful valleys of the lakes and Mississippi intersect. About their intersection lie the grain-growing States which are able to feed not only the people of this Republic, but the people of other nations also.

In the first place, we must have through the northern valley water routes around Niagara falls and from Lake Erie or the St. Lawrence or both to New York. And we must have the waters of the northern Mississippi connected with the waters of the great lakes by means of this improvement, or by means of the Rock river improvement, or by means of the Illinois river improvement, or in some other way which careful surveys and experiments shall show to be cheapest and best. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. BUTLER.

Mr. Speaker, I agree

thoroughly with every word that has been said upon the question of the ultimate necessity of water transportation for the agricultural products of this country. I agree, also, that under other circumstances it would be the duty of the General Government to aid in the improvement of that water transportation. I take no exception to anything that has been said by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] or the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. PIKE] upon that subject. But I except to a statement that has been made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WOODWARD.] If I heard him aright, he said that this is the condition of things to which the country has been brought by the Republican party. I pray to differ with the gentleman in that judgment. It is a condition of things to which the Democratic party has brought this country.

And that is the foundation of my argument now. Because of what has gone before, because of the war just closed, we are now as a people so burdened with taxes, so troubled with exactions, that I think it is our duty to wait before we add to those taxes for the purpose of making improvements, however good in theory and however necessary in fact.

Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, have all grown to their present gigantic proportions without these improvements. They can wait one year longer without them, for their present growth is enormous. I agree to all that. I ask, then, which is best; whether we should go forward and attempt these improvements now or wait until we have got into a condition where we can be just before we are generous?

Sir, if we upon this side of the House are to stand upon anything as to the policy upon which we propose to go into the next campaign it is upon economy of administration. We have only this floor to show that desire. The Executive Departments of the Government, which substantially control the administration of the finances, are not within our reach or within our control; and the people must look here upon this floor as the only place where we, as a party, can exhibit the principles upon which we stand. If, then, we vote away at this time six or eight million dollars let me say to you that the people will say, "With our taxes we cannot afford to make the experiment;" and for this reason: without arguing the question as to whether these expenses are necessary or are promising great results or not, I say we are in no condition to meet these expenditures. You might as well ask one of the mill-owners of my State, who is so far in debt that his mill is mortgaged and he cannot get production to meet his expenditures, to go into great expenditure to improve his property and render it more productive at this moment. Wait until we are able, until we are able as a people, then I will vote for this and other expenditures of a like character.

I ask my friends from the Northwest which would they rather do-have these rivers improved this year, and upon the charge of extravagance which will be made against us in the country, have power pass out of our hands and so prevent future improvements[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT. I move that all further debate be closed on the pending paragraph in five minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. ELIOT. I now yield to my colleague. Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to engage in the discussion of the general subject; but I will say, in my opinion, this country is to be changed and improved before it will be able to pay the interest on its public debt. There must be something done, sir, for the industry of the country.

Is

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to know, Mr. Speaker, what question the gentleman from Massachusetts is authorized to discuss. there any amendment now pending? The SPEAKER. pending.

There is no amendment

Mr. PAINE. I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BANKS. I renew it. Mr. ELDRIDGE. How can the gentleman speak when the House has closed debate? The SPEAKER. It was ordered to be closed in five minutes.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desired an opportunity to speak myself.

The SPEAKER. The motion of the gen. tleman from Massachusetts was to close debate in five minutes and it was adopted.

Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I do not regard the proposition to improve the Wisconsin river as an experiment. I do not think it will prove an abortive affair, as suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WOODWARD.] I believe the plan of the Government engineer, General Warren, will be entirely successful and entirely satisfactory. I have seen this tried myself, and I cannot by any possibility doubt the result. I have seen, Mr. Speaker, large steamers embedded from five to six feet in the sand with the river bed apparently dry leaving a single little stream of water and then by the aid of wing-dams I have seen these steamers lifted up by the power of water alone and floated into the river. I have seen that done; and I am just as confident that this proposed plan of the engineer will make this river navigable as that I can go from my place outside of this Hall, and at a cost of less than $40,000. The effect will be marvelous. The principle is perfectly simple. It is this: where the water is spread over a large surface it leaves no depth and allows no navigation; but if you collect that water by means of these wing-dams into a single channel just wide enough to admit a steamer, you may increase the depth of the water from five or six inches, or even where there is apparently none at all, to the depth required for steamboat navigation. I would not have believed it had I not seen it tried; but having seen it, I know that the result of this experiment will be an entire success. Therefore I shall vote for the proposition.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire, in the remaining time of the gentleman, to call the attention of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] to the report of General Warren in regard to the expense. The gentle. man says it can be done for $40,000. What does General Warren tell us in this official document will be the expense of the improvement which my friend undertakes to inaugurate to-day? It is twenty to thirty thousand dollars a mile! That amount of money is to be taken out of the Treasury in order to attempt the experiment of making this river navigable.

Mr. ELIOT. I desire to say that I do not represent the views of Massachusetts upon this question, but rather the views of the West in spite of the opposition of the chairman of the committee.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not yield to my friend to interrupt me in this way. Mr. ELIOT. I think I am entitled to the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts is entitled to the remainder of the time, if he claims it.

Mr.WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Whose time is it now?

Mr. BANKS. The gentleman from Illinois has no right to speak in my time.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think I have spoken in the gentleman's time. [Laughter.]

Mr. BANKS. I withdraw the amendment. The question recurred on the motion of Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, to strike out the paragraph.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to make a suggestion to facilitate our action on this bill.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I object.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to make a suggestion to close debate. It is in relation to voting. Will the gentleman hear it? Mr. ELDRIDGE. No, sir. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois.

I rise

then to a question of order. Has not the House a right to take the yeas and nays on every separate proposition in the bill?

The SPEAKER. After the House has passed through the bill as in Committee of the Whole, making various amendments, when the question recurs, Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time? a separate vote can be demanded on every proposition that remains in the bill not having been stricken out.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The suggestion I make is that: that having that right to a separate vote on the various propositions we shall save a great deal of time after we have discussed the various propositions by letting them pass, and when it comes to the engrossment we can have a separate vote.

The SPEAKER. That can be done by withdrawing the motion to strike out.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I understand that, and I withdraw my motion to strike out the pending paragraph. I shall, however, demand a vote in the House on the main proposition. I do not care about taking up the time now, as it merely involves two votes. That is all there is of it.

The Clerk will read the

The SPEAKER. rule on page 16 of the Digest. The Clerk read as follows:

"Upon the engrossment of any bill making appropriations of money for works of internal improvement of any kind or description, it shall be in the power of any member to call for a division of the question, so as to take a separate vote of the House upon each item of improvement or appropriation contained in said bill, or upon such items separately, and others collectively, as the member making the call may specify: and if one fitth of the members present second said call, it shall be the duty of the Speaker to make such divisions of the question, and put them to vote accordingly."

Mr. PHELPS. I wish to inquire at what precise point of time it is competent to ask for that division?

The SPEAKER. When the question is stated by the Chair, "Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time?'' a separate vote can be asked on any appropriation that remains in the bill and has not been stricken out.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to inquire of the Chair whether, the motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] having been withdrawn, I have not now an opportunity of moving an amendment to the paragraph?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has, but without debate, because debate on the paragraph has been closed.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I understood that it was only closed on the proposition of the gentleman from Illinois.

The SPEAKER. On everything in regard to the Wisconsin river.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I do not desire to move an amendment for the purpose of amendment, but for the purpose of speaking to it.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman cannot do that under the order of the House.

Mr. SPALDING. This bill being considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole, is it in order at any time to move to lay the bill on the table?

The SPEAKER. This being the House, the motion to lay on the table can be made. Mr. SPALDING. At any time?

The SPEAKER. At any time. It would not be in order in Committee of the Whole, but being in the House as in Committee of the Whole, the double privileges of the House and of the Committee of the Whole are vested in the body in acting on the bill.

Mr. WOODWARD. On the motion to lay on the table I demand the yeas and nays.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] did not make that motion. Mr. WOODWARD. Then I make the motion.

Mr. ALLISON. And on it I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ELIOT. I hope this will be considered

the gentleman from Pennsylvania will withdraw his motion. There will be a substitute offered which I think will be satisfactory to the House.

Mr. JENCKES. I rise to a question of order. I wish to make an inquiry of the Chair. The SPEAKER. That is not a question of order.

Mr. JENCKES. It relates to a question of order. Is not the order of the House that the bill shall be considered as in Committee of the Whole?

The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. JENCKES. Then how can a motion to lay on the table be entertained if the bill is being considered as in Committee of the Whole?

The SPEAKER. Precisely for the same reason that the yeas and nays can be called in the House on any proposition now pending before it. They cannot be called in Committee of the Whole, yet they may be in the House when the House is acting as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. JENCKES. Does the Chair decide that the yeas and nays can be called now on any proposition?

The SPEAKER. They can.

Mr. JENCKES. I should raise the same question of order on that.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would answer it by the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal." That does not apply to the Committee of the Whole, but it does to the House of Representatives.

Mr. WOODWARD. I withdraw the motion to lay on the table.

The Clerk read the next paragraph, as follows:

For improvement of Ontonagon harbor, Lake Superior, $20,000.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. For the purpose of saying a few words I move to strike out that paragraph. I do not know anything about this harbor, or whether the appropriation is a proper one or not. But I, for one, do not propose to ride in this omnibus

Mr. ALLISON. I rise to a point of order. I insist that the gentleman must confine his remarks to the paragraph.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Well, if the gentleman does that the same rule must be enforced on other gentlemen.

Mr. ALLISON. That is what I want. The SPEAKER. The gentleman has a right to state his reasons for moving to strike out the paragraph.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I understand that a substitute for the bill has been prepared which provides for some of the most important works. I am myself in favor of general appropriations for rivers and harbors; but I am not in favor of making an appropriation for every little river and every little harbor that any gentleman may happen to have in his district for the purpose of getting his vote. There are some works of importance in the West. The St. Clair flats should be improved and harbors of refuge should be built, for they are works which pertain to the interests and commerce of the whole country. But at the present time to appropriate $10,000 to be thrown into Lake Michigan at this point, and another $10,000 to be thrown into it ten miles farther off, and another $10,000 to be thrown into it a few miles further on; to appropriate, as this bill does, $5,000 for this river and $5,000, for that, appropriations which, in the judgment of any candid man, cannot be of any importance whatever in prosecuting the works proposed, it seems to me is all very absurd.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether it is now in order to move a substitute for this entire bill.

The SPEAKER. A substitute for the bill can now be moved, but action upon it will be reserved until the original bill has been perfected.

It would save a

Mr. FARNSWORTH. great deal of time if we could act upon the substitute at once.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to say to my colleague [Mr. FARNSWORTH] that a substitute will be proposed, to be offered at the proper time, which I think will meet with his approbation and the approbation of a majority of this House.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I think this is no time for the Congress of the United States to enter upon new works of internal improvement. Our constituents do not demand it, the country does not demand it, and certainly the interests of the country will not be promoted thereby at the present time.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT obtained the floor.

Mr. DRIGGS. I hope the gentleman will yield to me for one minute.

Mr. ELIOT. Very well; I will yield to the gentleman for one minute.

Mr. DRIGGS. I understood the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] when he first rose, to say that he did not know anything about this harbor. That was, perhaps, one of the best reasons in the world why he should oppose this appropriation. Now, I want to say that I do know something about it. There was an appropriation made of $100,000 to build a harbor at one of the most exposed points on that immense inland sea, Lake Supe rior. The Government is now engaged in building that harbor, and the War Department has estimated for only just enough to keep the works there from waste and decay, to carry it along so as to have it protected until a more appropriate time to make a larger appropriation to complete the work. That is the real condition of it. I will only say now, because I have not more time, that I hope the House will not strike out this appropriation.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT. The objection made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] to this bill is that it is an omnibus bill. There has not been a river and harbor bill passed for many years which did not include in it all the points of importance which the Congress that passed upon it deemed it desirable to legislate for at that time. In earlier days it was the practice to introduce a separate bill for each particular point. But it was found to be inconvenient to do that, and the practice has grown up, which has been uniform for many years, to put all the appropriations for such purposes in one bill, and that necessarily makes what the gentleman calls an omnibus bill. This point, covered by the item now under consideration, is one upon which the Government has been and is now engaged at work in the expenditure of moneya heretofore appropriated. It is now in the course of construction. And the point made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] that he is in favor of harbors of refuge is met by the answer that this is just one of those points.

It is stated by the engineers who have had this matter in charge that this very point, Ontonagon, is important if there was no commerce at all there; of vast importance as a harbor of refuge. Therefore it comes within the principle of the substitute which the gen tleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] has talked about, in which he makes provision for one harbor of refuge. This is a very important point in that respect. Now, sir, this is not a new work. It has been examined, surveys of it were made in the first place, and afterward appropriations were made. It is now in the course of construction and completion. It occupies the same ground in that regard that most all the appropriations in this bill do, for all of them, with here and there an exceptional case, are for works which are now in the course of completion.

The question was upon the amendment of Mr, FARNSWORTH.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I moved that amendment with reference to this particular item

merely for the purpose of submitting some general remarks. I now withdraw the amendment.

No further amendment was offered.

The following clauses were read:

For improvement of Eagle harbor, Lake Superior, $20,000.

For improvement of Marquette harbor, Lake Superior, $20,000.

For improvement of Green Bay harbor, Wisconsin, $35,000.

For improvement of Chippewa river, $5,000. For improvement of Manitowoc harbor, Wisconsin, $35,000.

For improvement of St. Croix river, $5,000. For improvement of Sheboygan harbor, Wisconsin, $20,000.

For improvement of Milwaukee harbor, Wisconsin, $15,000.

Mr. PAINE. I move to amend the appropriation for the improvement of Milwaukee harbor by increasing it to $25,000.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot state all the reasons for my amendment for want of time, but I think I have satisfied the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] that this increase ought to be made. I will read from page 22 of the estimates for these appropriations:

"An extension of both piers three hundred feet would postpone for many years the injurious results now threatened. This extension is therefore recommended by the engineer in charge, at a cost of $65.872 80. Deducting present balance of appropriation on hand, $38,354 53, would leave, say $28,000, which could be profitably expended during the next fiscal year. The recommendatien is approved."

Then I turn to page 78, and, relating to the same appropriation, I find this:

"This extension is necessary; for the bar, though forming slowly, will in course of time obstruct the entrance if nothing be done to prevent it, and if the work be delayed it will cost more when it is done, because the bar will have to be dredged away, thus incurring an expense not necessary now."

I do not ask the House to appropriate any more than is called for by the engineers in order to finish this work. I only move to add $10,000, bringing the appropriation up to $25,000; and I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, who reported this bill, whether it is not reasonable?

Mr. ELIOT. I am bound to say in regard to this amendment that there was some error. From examination at the War Department I am satisfied it ought to be corrected. This, with other appropriations the gentleman will call attention to, are eminently sound and proper. This appropriation should be increased to $25,000. I hope, therefore, the amendment will be adopted.

The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:

For improvement of Racine harbor, Wisconsin, $10,000.

Mr. PAINE. For the same reason I move to increase this $10,000, and make it $20,000.

I will say, so far as the harbor of Milwaukee is concerned, the city itself has expended nearly half a million dollars upon it. The city of Racine has also expended a large amount on this harbor. I shall move to increase the appropriation for Kenosha also. The engineer reports as follows:

"9. Harbor of Racine, Wisconsin. "The plan for this harbor is to extend both piers, composed of cribs ballasted with stone, until a depth of filteen feet of water is reached, and to dredge between the piers until twelve feet is obtained throughout.

"Due notice having been given, the bids were opened and contracts entered into for prolonging the north pier the required distance.

"The engineer in charge recommends dredging between the piers to a depth of fourteen feet. The estimated cost of this improvement was $84,172 48: the amount appropriated was $45,000; amount required to complete the work, $39,172 48; add for additional dredging, $5,000; amount which can be profitably expended during the next fiscal year, $45,000. The recommendation is approved. "(See Appendix A, 8.)

"10. Harbor of Kenosha, Wisconsin. "During the present season the contractors have extended the south pier three hundred and fifty-two feet, and will complete the extension of the north pier one hundred and ninety-two feet.

"Adepth of twelve feet has been obtained throughout the greater part of the water-way, between the piers, by dredging. The old piers are in bad condition, and require rebuilding from the water surface. the basin inside is very shallow.

Mr. ELIOT. The improvement of this harbor now contemplated can be found set out at length in the report, pages 75 and 76. These harbors are important not only for the purposes of commerce, but as harbors of refuge. The gentleman's amendment is in accordance with the estimates.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read the next clause, as follows: For improvement of Kenesho harbor, Wisconsin, $10,000.

Mr. PAINE. I move to increase that to $20,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk next read the following clauses: For improvement of harbor of Chicago, Illinois, $48,000.

For improvement of Michigan City harbor, Indiana, $35,000.

For improvement of harbor of St. Joseph, Michigan, $20,000.

For improvement of South Haven harbor, Michigan, $20,000.

For improvement of Grand Haven harbor, Michigan, $20,000.

For improvement of Muskegon harbor, Michigan, $10,000.

For improvement of White river harbor, Michigan, $75,000,

For improvement of Pentwater harbor, Michigan, $25.000.

For improvement of Pere Marquette harbor, Michigan, $20,000.

For improvement of Manistee harbor, Michigan, $25,000.

Mr. PILE. I find the last appropriation read is an increase on the estimates. I move to reduce it to $20,000, and I should like to know the reasons for the increase.

Mr. FERRY. Will the chairman of the committee allow me to reply to the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. PILE.]

Mr. ELIOT. Certainly.

Mr. FERRY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri has moved to reduce the appropriation for Manistee harbor from $25,000 to $20,000, and asks why it has been increased above the amount recommended in the report. By reference to the annual report of the engineer department, to which I now call the attention of the gentleman, it will be seen that the amount originally recommended for that harbor was $60,000. With a view to bring the appropriations this year within the lowest possible limits, the House requested the chief of engineers to submit an est mate of the least amount that would be consistent with the preservation of the works, already commenced and partly finished. The response to this request was the supplemental estimate to which the making a very large reduction from the origIn this modified report, gentleman refers. inal one, I most heartily concurred. The condition of our finances, the burdens of necessary taxation demanded a scrupulous regard for the most economical expenditure of the public funds compatible with the public interests.

To show the gentleman how far that disposition was regarded, and in which I most cheerfully coöperated, I call his attention to the fact that for the harbors in the district I represent the amount was reduced from $433,000 to $185,000, a reduction of $248,000; and it will be further seen how materially this operated on Manistee harbor, when the estimates for that were cut down to one third the original amount recommended. That the gentleman and the House may appreciate how far I shared in that disposition to cut down appropriations to the lowest possible figures consistent with a wise regard to a just economy, let me instance the case of Grand Haven harbor, where I reside. The original estimate for this was $75,000, and mostly for the construction of a new north pier. Believing that

we could get along without a north pier for the present as we had for the past, I recommended abandonment of that till we were better able to meet the necessary appropriation, and that only so much as was necessary to complete the existing south pier and fully protect that should be appropriated. Twenty thousand dollars only was therefore recommended for Grand Haven harbor, instead of $75,000.

Upon the same theory of a wise economy I urged an appropriation for Muskegon harbor, sufficient to protect the piers already built, but of such temporary character, largely of slabs, exposed to the fire of passing steamers, and $10,000 was recommended in the last estimate where none was deemed necessary in the first estimate. Knowing that any day fire or other elements might so injure or destroy existing piers there that the harbor might be seriously damaged, I could well urge something for that object and it was true economy, too-since I had cheerfully acquiesced in cutting down my own harbor from $75,000 to $20,000.

It is for this reason, sir, that Muskegon harbor appears with $10,000 in the last estimate against nothing in the first one. Upon the same principle of a wise regard to the condition of the several harbors within my district, for similar reasons it was necessary to increase Manistee harbor from $20,000 to $25,000, as the bill appears. Bearing in mind that the original estimate for this harbor was $60,000, the gentleman ought not to complain if our laudable economy has reduced the appropriation there $35,000, even if he discovers that the $25,000 in the bill is actually $5,000 more than appears in the supplemental estimate. This $5,000 I urged for protection against the ravages of fire, and because I felt confident that $20,000 would not be enough to keep going the work already commenced, and give due protection to money already expended, and insure safety to the growing commerce of

that river.

More than this, Mr. Speaker, without disparaging other points of like energy, I may freely say that this appropriation and more is due alike to the enterprise and merits of the citizens of Manistee. With an outlay and persistency which entitle them to all praise they have, until within a very short time, made all the improvements of that harbor at their own charges. It is but just to them that the Government should now come to their rescue and share the burden of this work. Of my own knowledge and observation do I speak when I say that the enterprise exhibited all along the western shore of Michigan in respect to improvement of harbors of refuge is worthy the consideration of the Government. Winds prevailing as they do from the westward the whole shipping of the chain of lakes are more or less exposed to that shore, and the magnitude of that commerce entitles, yea, demands aid to construct suitable harbors of refuge, and you cannot have too many such. Vessels that are annually stranded upon that shore speak louder than my feeble voice for what I am contending. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the five-minutes' rule deprives me from saying what I would like to say on this question of protection to harbors and commerce and which the subject demands, but I trust the gentleman is answered and that he will no longer press his amendment.

Mr. PILE. I withdraw the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

For improvement of harbor at Aux Becs Scies, Michigan, $10,000.

For improvement of Saugatuck harbor, Michigan, $30,000.

For improvement of the St. Mary's river, Michigan, $20,000.

For improvement of Au Sable river, Lake Huron, Michigan, $20,000. 、

For improvement of St. Clair flats, Lake St. Clair, $200,000.

Mr. EGGLESTON. I move, on behalf of the Committee on Commerce, to insert the fol lowing:

For improvement of the Sandusky river, Ohio, $15,000.

The amendment was agreed to.