FEB. 4, 1835.] Public Deposites and United States Bank. first reading, to lay it on the table, and the motion was entertained. The SPEAKER said, if he made such a decision, it was erroneous, and he proceeded to read the rule on the subject. Mr. POLK asked whether the motion to lay on the table had not precedence of any other motion? The SPEAKER replied that the special rule, in this case, set aside the general rule. This was the first occasion on which the question had been presented to the : Chair. The question of order could not have been raised on the occasion alluded to by the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. SPEIGHT rose, he said, to appeal to the gentleman from New York, in favor of suffering this bill to take the usual course. He was desirous that the subject should be thoroughly investigated, and if it should be found that we owed the claimants, on account of these spoliations, he would vote for paying them, whatever might be the state of the treasury. Mr. CAMBRELENG would unite his effort, he said, to that of the gentleman from North Carolina, for the withdrawal of this motion. On a question of such vast importance, there would not be time for the House to act at this session. But the committee could at least go as far as to report what documents ought to be printed, in order to inform the House in regard to the subject. He believed that no subject ever had been presented to the House which involved so many important questions as this. One question was, whether the Government would be made responsible, in any case, for an indemnity due from a foreign Power, and not provided for by treaty. He had not made up his mind on this subject, and he should go into the consideration of it with a determination to do justice to the claimants and to the country. Mr. MANN said, as the impression seemed to prevail that the bill ought to be suffered to take the usual course, he would withdraw his motion to lay the bill on the table. The bill having been read a second time, Mr. MANN moved its reference to the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. CAMBRELENG moved its reference to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. E. EVERETT said it was proper to refer the bill to the Committee on Foreign Relations. To that committee the subject had been referred when it was formerly before the House. Mr. BURGES said this was not a question on a subject connected with the duties of the Committee of Ways and Means. When the bill was passed, it would belong to that committee to devise the means of meeting the appropriation. Mr. GILLET said the bill involved the consideration of the evidence of claims. It was a question of the construction of an instrument, and, therefore, ought to go to the Committee on the Judiciary. He moved its reference to that committee. Mr. FILLMORE, with great deference, suggested that, as a claim upon the Government, it ought to go to the Committee of Claims. Mr. ARCHER remarked that every petition relating to this subject had been uniformly referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations; and if this bill was committed at all, it ought to be committed to that committee; but he was entirely persuaded that it was not possible for the House to act on the bill at this session. Mr. McKIM asked to be excused from voting on this question, as he was personally interested in it. Mr. MANN said it seemed to him that the most material part of the bill concerned the money which was to be paid, and our relations with foreign Powers; and without provision for payment, the bill would be of very VOL. XI.-74 little consequence. [H. OF R. He knew of no reason for sending it to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as it was a question of the payment of money to individuals and favorites. He would not go further into the discussion, b t would ask the yeas and nays; which were refused. Mr. VANDERPOEL said there could be no doubt that the most appropriate committee to which this bill could be committed was the Committee on Foreign Affairs. His colleague [Mr. MANN] had observed that it was only or mainly a question of money, a matter about dollars; but it was more than this. It involved the question whether the faith of the nation was either expressly or impliedly pledged for the payment of these claims. If pledged, how? Why, sir, by reason of certain results and liabilities springing from our relations with a foreign Government. The question, then, now to be determined, was liability or no liability. After that was determined, it would be time enough to institute an inquiry into the ways and means of satisfying our obligations, if any should be adjudged to exist. Then the legitimate functions of the Committee of Ways and Means could be invoked; but now it was a question whether, according to the laws of nations, and our past relations with France, this nation was responsible to its citizens. [Mr. V. here read the 57th rule of the House, to show that this subject-matter did not come within the duties of the Committee of Ways and Means, as there prescribed.] He said that, when we come to act finally on this subject, it was more than probable that he would be found on the side of his colleague, [Mr. MANN;] for he had paid some attention to the subject, and was inclined to the opinion that the United States were not legally or equitably liable to these claimants; but this could not preclude him from voting for now giving the bill such a direction as he believed the rules of the House and the nature of the subject required. The motion to commit the bill to the Committee of Ways and Weans was then rejected--26 to 119. Mr. WISE moved instructions to the Committee on Foreign Affairs to report the bill on or before the 20th of February, but withdrew the motion. The bill was then referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. PUBLIC DEPOSITES AND UNITED STATES BANK. Mr. POLK said he had given notice some days ago that he would this day move that the House proceed to the consideration of the bill regulating the public deposites of the United States in the local banks, and the bill in relation to the Bank of the United States; and he now moved to postpone all the orders of the day preceding those bills, in order to take them up. Mr. CHINN was exceedingly anxious, he said, for the House to decide to-day on the Alexandria bill. Mr. CLAY hoped the motion would not prevail. The bill regulating the deposites could not become a law. The experiment had been tried. Mr. POLK said he would not admit that the bill could not become a law; on the contrary, he was disposed to try the experiment again. He should therefore press its early consideration upon the House. Mr. McKIM asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. WILLIAMS asked what bills would be set aside by the motion. Mr. CLAY said, about two hundred bills, one of which was the bill to reduce and graduate the price of the public lands. The question being taken on Mr. POLK's motion, it was decided in the negative: Yeas 90, nays 111. Mr. POLK then said that the passage of these bills was necessary to the proper operation of the fiscal con cerns of the Government, and he should ask the House, on Tuesday next, to take them up. In the meantime he hoped that many of the bills of immediate interest would be disposed of, and that the House would then determine whether to act on the deposite bill and the bills relating to the bank at the present session. ALEXANDRIA CANAL. The House proceeded to the consideration of the mo tion to reconsider the vote rejecting the bill for the relief of the city of Alexandria. Mr. HARDIN rose and addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Speaker: I would not trespass again on the attention and patience of the House on this subject, were it not for the peculiar situation in which I am placed. It will be recollected that, when the question on the passage of the bill at a former day of the session was presented to the House for its final vote and decision, I had the honor to address a few remarks to this honorable body. I was replied to by several gentlemen, and particularly by the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, [Mr. CHINN.] The reporter for the Intelligencer, whose position is some sixty feet from where I stood, took notes of what I said on that occasion. The notes, such as they were, appeared in the InIelligencer. They were not given to me for correc tion. What I then said was not correctly given to the public, either as to matter or manner. They omitted some things I did say, and made me say that which I never uttered. The speech of the honorable gentleman who replied to me was published in the same paper, and at the same time, and given to the world as a contrast, one to the other. The notes of what he said were furnished to him for his revisal, finishing touch, and correction. The remarks I made, I have no doubt, suffered by the comparison. The honorable gentleman was much nearer the reporter than I was when he spoke. I do not now again ask the attention of the House on my own so much as I do on account of the great cause I advocate, and as a justification of the motives which influence me. I wish to be distinctly understood as not intending to insinuate that the reporter or the editors of that paper intended to do me injustice; I know they are incapable of it; but it was an omission in not furnishing me the notes for correction; and I am the sufferer by it. It is a melancholy reflection to see and know how much a man's fame and reputation in this House is made to depend upon the attention or neglect of the reporters of the debates, or upon their whims and caprices, good or bad feelings towards the speaker or the cause he is advocating. The public good requires their attendance here, and we must bear with them as a necessary evil. Having said this much in relation to that which chiefly concerned myself, I will now solicit the attention of the House, while I make a few observations upon the merits of the bill, and in answer to what has been said on the other side. The bill proposes to give to the Alexandria Canal Company $100,000, not to take stock in the company to that amount, but in fact and truth to make a present of it. This sum in addition to $100,000 given by Congress in 1832 to the same company, and for the same object, which sum has nearly all been expended. The company urge and press their claims to the money upon a great variety of considerations; some of which I will notice, and I will endeavor to do it with that order and method calculated to make me best understood. It is said that Virginia, when she surrendered to the United States that part of the District of Columbia south of the Potomac, and which includes Alexandria, gave to never. [FEB. 4, 1835. claimed by Alexandria from the general Government. I will ask the honorable gentleman who advanced this argument, when this money was given by Virginia, was it intended to be reclaimed? Surely not. Virginia is too noble, generous, proud, and magnanimous, to give and then demand the gift back again. What she gives, it goes freely, and is gone from her for ever. It is an insult on the giver for Alexandria to claim it. She, by the claim, insults the feelings of Virginia, and diminishes the value of the gift. Maryland, when she surrendered that part of the District which lies north of the Potomac, gave about $40,000. Has she ever reclaimed it? No, But, Mr. Speaker, I have heard of this gift so often, the last session and the present, that I propose to spend a moment or two longer in the examination of it. When this District was formed, by the cessions of Virginia and Maryland, and those two small gifts were made, the Government of the United States was then in its infancy. The population of the whole of the States was little over three millions. The United States had assumed the revolutionary debt of all the States, amounting to near one hundred millions. Virginia and Maryland had thus got clear of their debts, which were many and large. The sums each State owed I do not know, but certainly several millions of dollars; and in return, one State gave $100,000, and the other $40,000. All the States, except Georgia, ceded their waste and unappropriated lands to the general Government, for the common benefit of all. I ask gentlemen what return, since then, have the United States made to Virginia? In addition to assuming her revolutionary debt, they have from time to time paid off, in land and money, the commutation and half pay of the officers of the State and continental line-amounting, in the whole, to at least one million of dollars. These heavy responsibilities and large sums paid are not all. The general Government has made a turnpike road from Cumberland to Wheeling, passing through a part of Virginia. Averaging the cost of that part with the cost of the whole road, the sum expended in Virginia will be about $500,000. The Government of the United States has paid $150,000 for the bridge across the Potomac at the little falls and the turnpike road to the District line, and bas made them free of toll, which enables the people of Virginia to bring their produce to Georgetown and Washington without any cost or charge. We have also paid $20,000 to the owners of the bridge across the Potomac, opposite the city of Washington, and appropriated $130,000 to rebuild the bridge-that is likewise a free bridge; so that all the Virginians come to the city and Georgetown with what they have for sale free of toll, and have now opened to them, at the same cost of transportation, three markets instead of one, which was all they formerly had. When These are the returns which the United States have made to Virginia for her cession and gift of $100,000. What has Maryland ever received, except the assumption of her revolutionary debt? Not one cent. her citizens come and have to cross the Eastern branch with their produce, down to a turkey or pound of butter, they have to pay toll to the proprietors of the bridges across that river. If it were left to my choice, I would make those bridges free also, by the Govern ment purchasing out the stock; yet the people of Maryland have never complained. I should be glad to know how the city of Alexandria can claim this $100,000. If it can be claimed at all, it is by Virginia alone; and if she makes the claim, then it is a money transaction altogether; and let us account to and with each other, strike the balance, and let either party pay as that balance may fall. But suppose Alexandria has a right to it-then how does the claim stand? We have paid about $12,000 to the United States $100,000; this money and interest is purchase ground and build a jail for that city. We gave to the people of that city, who suffered by fire, $20,000, and, as I have already shown, we, in 1832, gave this very company $100,000. Alexandria and this city participate equally in the long bridge, which has cost $150,000. If it be possible ever to liquidate and pay this pretended debt, it has been paid ten times over to Virginia and Alexandria. When I come to enume. rate what has been disbursed for this whole District, which I intend to do hereafter, I will then show what has been paid to sustain the judiciary and executive departments which govern the District, and properly belong to it, and in which Alexandria has largely participated. A gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. ALLEN,] has put this question upon another ground. He says we are indebted to the District between seven and eight hundred thousand dollars-the amount of the proceeds of the public grounds which we have sold and not accounted for, as by the deeds from the original proprietors we were bound to do; and that it is a reproach to the justice of this House and the nation if we do not pass this bill, and thereby pay a debt which we owe; nay, to use his own words, that the honor of the nation will be tarnished by a foul stain, if we refuse the appropriation asked for. In addition to that statement of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, the mayor of this city stated to me that the United States owed the District about six millions. I think I understand those gentlemen who talk in this way about so heavy a debt-it is to familiarize Congress to it. It will be recollected by the House that this city owes a debt in Holland of $1,000,000; Georgetown owes a debt to the same people of $250,000, and Alexandria a like sum of money, borrowed to fill their respective subscriptions to the Ohio and Chesapeake Canal Company. We paid $70,000 for this city last year--the interest on this debt and cost of remittance. There is a bill in the Senate to pay it for five years more; and when the whole debt for the District falls due, amounting to $1,500,000, we are to be called on to pay the principal; and to prepare us for that event, this pretended debt is to be set up and claimed. The gear is not put on the horse in the first instance, nor is the ox put into the yoke; both are broke into the gear and yoke by degrees. We are to be trained shortly in the same way, in relation to this Holland debt. I intend, Mr. Speaker, to resist this unfounded demand in favor of the District against the United States, at the threshold. In truth and fact, if we are to give, let us have the credit in word, promise, and honor, of giving, and not permit ourselves to be mocked and insulted by having it claimed of us as a debt. I propose, if I can obtain the attention of the House, to examine into the nature and extent of this demand. The agreement between the original proprietors and the commissioners appointedon the part of the Unites States is in these words: Proceedings of the commissioners appointed by the President of the United States of America, by virtue of an act of Congress intituled "An act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States." At a meeting of the commissioners appointed by virtue of an act of Congress intituled "An act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States," at Georgetown, in Maryland, on Tuesday, the 12th day of May, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one. Present-Thomas Johnson, David Stuart, and Daniel Carroll, Esquires. [H. OF R. prietors, was presented by Mr. Johnson, and agreed to by the commissioners--but there was this difference between the deed from Mr. Young and the deed from the other proprietors, as then agreed upon, that the word garden" should be inserted after the word "building,' in two places in the deed from Mr. Young. 66 The agreement entered into by the proprietors is as follows, to wit: "We, the subscribers, in consideration of the great benefits we expect to derive from having the federal city laid off upon our lands, do hereby agree and bind ourselves, heirs, executors, and administrators, to convey in trust, to the President of the United States, or commissioners, or such person or persons as he shall appoint, by good and sufficient deeds in fee simple, the whole of our respective lands, which he may think proper to include within the lines of the federal city, for the purposes and on the conditions following: The President shall have the sole power of directing the federal city to be laid off in what manner he pleases. He may retain any number of squares he may think proper for public improvements, or other public uses, and the lots only which shall be laid off shall be a joint property between the trustees on behalf of the public and each present proprietor, and the same shall be fairly and equally divided between the public and the individuals, as soon as may be, after the city is laid off. "For the streets the proprietors shall receive no compensation, but for the squares, or lands in any form which shall be taken for public buildings or any kind of public improvements or uses, the proprietors whose lands shall be so taken shall receive at the rate of twentyfive pounds per acre, to be paid by the public. "The whole wood on the lands shall be the property of the proprietors; but should any be desired by the President to be reserved or left standing, the same shall be paid for by the public, at a just and reasonable valuation, exclusive of the twenty-five pounds per acre to be paid for the land on which the same shall remain. "Each proprietor shall retain the full possession and use of his land, until the same shall be sold and occupied by the purchasers of the lots laid out thereupon; and in all cases where the public arrangements, as the streets, lots, &c., will admit of it, each proprietor shall possess his buildings and other improvements, and grave yards, paying to the public only one half the present estimated value of the lands on which the same shall be, or twelve pounds ten shillings per acre. But in cases where the arrangements of the streets, lots, squares, &c., will not admit of this, and it shall become necessary to remove such buildings, improvements, &c., the proprietors of the same shall be paid the reasonable value thereof by the public. "Nothing herein contained shall affect the lots which any of the parties to this agreement may hold in the towns of Carrollsburgh or Hamburgh. "In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals, this thirtieth day of March, 1791. Robert Peter, David Burn, James Lingan, Uriah Forrest, Benj'n Stoddert, Notley Young, D. Carroll, of D'n, [seal.] Overton Carr, [seal.] Th. Beall, of Geo., [seal.] Charles Beatty, [seal.] Anthony Holmead, [seal.] William King, William Young, [seal.] [seal.] Edward Peirce, [seal.] [seal.] Abraham Young, [seal.] [seal.] James Peirce, [seal.] [seal.] William Prout, [seal.] [seal.] [seal.] Robert Peter, [seal.] Ben. Stoddert, for Jno. Warring, by written authority [seal.] from Mr. Warring, [seal.] The form of the conveyance to trustees, to be executed by the proprietors of the lands between the Eastern branch and Rock creek, prepared agreeably to the directions of the President of the United States, and pursuant to the tenor of the agreement signed by the pro-Young, not yet conveyed.) "Signed and sealed in presence of us, (Mr. Thomas Beall making an exception of the lands he sold Abraham H. OF R.] Witness to all the subscribers, including― · William Young, William Bayly, William Robertson, John Suter, Alexandria Canal Bill. Samuel Davidson, witness to Ab'm. Young's signing, William Deakins, Jr., for Wm. Prout and Wm. King. COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, April 24, 1834. I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy from the proceedings of the commissioners appointed by the President of the United States of America, by virtue of an act of Congress entitled "An act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States," recorded in vol. 1, in this office. W. NOLAND, C. P. B. By this agreement, it will be perceived that the proprietors expected great advantages to result to them by the establishment of the city on their lands. The streets and alleys they gave to the public; for the public grounds they were paid twenty-five pounds per acre. What the Government wanted for public buildings have thus been used and occupied. Those lots and parcels of ground which were not required for the public buildings have been disposed of in the following manner: some have been sold, others surrendered to the corporation of Washington, and part are now enclosed by the United States, or lying waste. It is for those lots which have been sold, and the money received, that this pretended claim is set up, under the expressions in the agreement, "shall be joint property between the trustees on behalf of the public and each present proprietor, and the same shall be fairly and equally divided between the public and the individuals, as soon as may be, after the city is laid off." The question is, what is meant by the word "public" The people of the District say it is them. I say it is the whole American people. Who were the contracting parties? The commissioners appointed by the President of the United States, for and in behalf of the United States of the one part, and the proprietors of the lands of the other. Who wished a place to locate permanently the seat of their Government? The United States. Who are to use the public buildings? The United States, by the officers of Government. Who paid the twenty-five pounds per acre? The United States. The whole people, in their corporate character and capacity, are the "public" thus referred to. If the people of the District can claim the money for which the lots sold, then the same claim can equally be made to this Capitol, the President's house, navy yard, and other public buildings. The question is too plain for argument. I will only say that there is a boldness and effrontery in the claim, (not to call it impudence,) that is without a parallel. It is said that the United States pay no part of the city tax; and that is assigned as a reason for the passage of this bill. This claim, if well founded, cannot apply to Alexandria, as the United States own no property in the District south of the Potomac; but, as it applies to the city of Washington, how does the matter stand? A corporation tax is laid on two accounts: one to improve the public ways and other grounds, which the health of the people or the ornament of the city may require; the other for the government and convenience of the people who live in the city. All, or at least a large part of the public grounds, have been improved at the public expense; all the costly improvements of the public squares and other public grounds are at the cost of the general Government. [FEB. 4, 1835. footway, or a piece of ground highly beautified and or namented, which has not been done out of the public treasury. The general Government is greatly ahead of private individuals in improving the public property; and all that could be required is, that it should keep equal pace, in improving their property, with the citi zens. with that amount. Mr. Speaker, suppose we were to admit, for argument sake, what gentlemen contend for-that the word "public," in the agreement I have read, means the people of this District: then the inquiry presents itself, what is the amount of the sales of the lots which would go and belong to the public? The gentleman from Virginia says about $700,000. Charge the United States And the next inquiry is, what credits are they entitled to? The credits are the disbursements of the general Government for this city and District. One million of dollars has been paid to the Ohio and Chesapeake canal; $150,000 for each of the bridges across the Potomac; $100,000 to the Alexandria Canal Company; about $160,000 to the canal running through the city; $130,000 to pave the Pennsylvania avenue. The United States gave to the corporation of this city, lots, squares, and pieces of ground, which this city has sold for about $160,000; about $100,000 for a penitentiary; the expenses of the judiciary and executive officers of the whole District, one year with another, will amount and last year $70,000 to pay the interest on the Holland to $10,000; that for thirty-four years amount to $340,000; debt due by the city. The whole amount, when added up, will stand thus: Chesapeake and Ohio canal, Alexandria canal, Public grounds surrendered, Civil government of the city, A jail in Alexandria, Gift to the city after the fire, Total, $1,000,000 100,000 300,000 130,000 160,000 160,000 100,000 340,000 70,000 12,000 20,000 $2,392,000 This enormous sum is below what it ought to be. The small sums expended by the Government for the city I have omitted in making the estimate. These heavy disbursements, it seems, in the opinions of some gentlemen, will not pay and satisfy the demands of the city and District, which, in the character of debts and demands, are without any foundation in law, justice, or equity. But the following sums are still claimed, and are embraced in bills either in this House or the Senate: The present bill, Additional subscription to the Chesapeake appearance; and I confidently hope and trust that am I, for one, will resist those claims at their first jority in this House will display the same determined There is not even a convenient spirit of resistance, and let the people of this District know that, instead of being daily fed out of the public crib, they, like the balance of the people of the United States, must make their living in the sweat of their face, and that the people of the United States shall not be taxed to support them. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, enter 2° my protest against such prodigality and profusion of the public money, and, at the same time, so limited and partial in locating the appropriations. I have said thus much, Mr. Speaker, to the preliminary question of debt, upon which, as I have before said, the passage of this bill is, in part, demanded and claimed of us; nay, some, in urging it, have assumed the haughty and imperious tone of an inexorable creditor pressing an bumble debtor. [H. of R. none else. The words "general welfare" mean nothing more than the power to effect and accomplish the powers which are necessarily incidental to the expressly delegated powers. If this interpretation be not given to the words "general welfare," then there is no limit; and if Congress should consider that it would be for the general welfare to abolish the State Governments altogether, under the words "general welfare" it could do it. Such a construction of these words cannot be tolerated a moment. What limit is there to the discretion of Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises? The exigencies and wants of the Government, as organized by the constitution. Those wants and exigencies prescribe the limits to, and bound the discretion of, Congress; they are the check and balance wheel in the great and complicated machinery of government. The moment you depart from this construction, then there is no land-mark remaining. It has been said, we can do it for this District, because we have exclusive legislation over it, although we cannot for a State. The power of legislation is one thing, and the power to dispose of the people's money is another. The objects for which the money shall be given are specifically pointed out. To profit individuals alone, or to relieve a man, or a company of men, embarrassed, is not within the enumerated powers, as prescribed by the constitution. I I have now, Mr. Speaker, said what I intended, and replied to gentlemen as far as I deemed necessary, as to the preliminary questions in this case; which are, the debt we owe to Virginia, and that Alexandria had a right to claim it; and also the debt we owed to this District. have also offered a few suggestions on the constitutional power of Congress to give away the money of the people. Pursuing the order of investigation which I proposed and prescribed to myself when I commenced my observations, the next inquiry will be, what will this aqueduct and canal cost, and who will have to pay it? Then the next point in order will be the necessity of making it, compared with the expense of its construction. I have heard something said that this District has strong claims upon the general Government, because the people paid a direct tax during the war: so did all the people of the United States, in the same proportion, and for the same object-protection against a foreign enemy, and to provide for the defence of all. It has also been said that the people of this District, by the consumption of imports, pay a part of the customs: so does the rest of the nation, and for the same purpose, to support the army, navy, and civil list; the benefits of which are equally felt by all. The District has no claims to any part of the public money thus paid in, more than any other part of the Union. It must be recollected by this House, that the people of the several States pay a tax to their State Governments, which this District does not pay. I have, sir, endeavored fairly and impartially to examine each item of this pretended debt, in detail; and also the money we have expended here already, and what we are called on to expend. I know the subject, in those parts of it, is dry and uninteresting. I beg pardon of the House for thus trespassing upon its pa tience. The present bill has not importance enough, in itself, to justify the consumption of the time of the House; but it is to resist the future claims which will be set up that has induced me to do and say what I have, and which furnishes the apology for so doing. I will now put the question to those State rights gentlemen, and ask them, individually, how can you vote for the As it respects the cost of the canal and aqueduct, I present bill, if the claim of a debt set up by its support. have no certain data to estimate from. The Potomac, ers is unfounded, and there is no justice or equity in it where the aqueduct is proposed to be constructed across with reference to the rest of the Union? It is not taking it, is fifteen hundred feet wide. I was on the site the stock in a company; nor is it making internal improve- other day, examined it, and had it measured. The averments, in which the United States are to have any in-age depth of the water is twelve feet. The mud at the terest after they are made; but simply giving, as a free gift to a private company, for their own use and benefit, $100,000 of the people's money. Have you a right to take the people's money and pay my debts, because may be embarrassed; or to improve my farm and enhance its value? You will all answer, and say, no; surely not. Then I will again ask, where is the difference between one man asking for assistance, and thirty men in a company? Is there a charm in the word company? That part of the constitution to which I allude reads in these words: I bottom, before you get to the solid rock, will average fifteen feet. The pillars above the water thirty-seven and one half feet, making the height of the pillars, altogether, sixty-four feet six inches. The canal is about eight miles long, and will require about four locks to let the water into the Potomac at Alexandria. It has several ravines, runs, and branches, to cross. The abutment on the Georgetown side will be about two hundred feet to the edge of the water; and from the Virginia side, about the same distance. What number of pillars are to be erected, on which the aqueduct is to be built, I do not know. If the span of the arches be one hundred feet, it will take fourteen: if the span be fifty feet, twenty-nine. My own impresion is, to make it a good and permanent aqueduct, the arches should be of stone, and not with a greater span than fifty feet. But I am informed the intention of the company is to make the arches of wood, and a span of one hundred feet. A wooden arch will not last ten years, with the action of water and air operating on it. Every person who has ever seen water led to a mill along a wooden aqueduct knows this to be fact. But a wooden arch of one hundred feet span can never bear the weight of water, timbers, and a loaded boat. The water in the canal is to be five feet deep and sixteen feet wide, making eight thousand square feet of water-allowing |