Mr. or I know it; and to o that Idesire to call the attention of the House. his proposition declares, 1st, that the bill is to be considered a lawful structure and a post route; 2nd, that no higher charges for transportation of the mails, troops, and munitions of war of the U.S shall be made for crossing the bridge than the rate per mile paid for transportation over the roads leading to said bridge; 3rd, that the draw shall be promptly opened on reasonable sig nal, except when trains are passing over the same, but in no case shall there be unnecessary delay during or after the passage of trains; 4th, litigation that may arise from aileged obstruction to navigation may be tried by the circuit court of the U.S. in either State that the bridge touches; 5th, the right to alter and amend the act to prevent or remove material obstruction to navigation of the river is expressly reserved to Congress. Everything that was in that bill, which met the almost unanimous support of this Congress at the last session, is embraced in this bill, except that this bridge is to be legalized and made a post road with a draw of only 120 feet, while the former bill required that the bridges hereafter built shall have a draw of 160 feet. The distinguished Gentfrom Illinois asks the question, “Why do you not require this draw to be 160 feet?” Sir, we do not require it because the structure is built. It is there, a monument of the enter prise and genius of those men who have sunk their money deep down in the bed of the mississippi that the constituents of the distinguished Gentfrom Illinois may reap the benefits of that rivalry which is afforded in car rying their products to market either through the city of Chicago to the city of NewYork, or on the “Father of Waters” to the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Speaker, permit me to call attention to the facts connected with this bridge. I do not state them merely from personal observation, but I state them as proved before the committee. I know the Gentfrom Illinois produced before that committee certificates from steamboat men, from pilots, from, men interested in the navigation of the Mississippi river and sworn to by them; but we had before us not only men connected with the navigation of the Mississippi river, but men who had been brought from other sections of the country, entirely disinterested pilots, steamboat men, and raftsmen, who had been called there by parties interested in the bridge to investigate and examine whether it was or not a material obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi river. We had their evidence. We took it, together with that of the men who were interested in the navigation of the river; and taking it altogether, there was no doubt in the minds of the committee it was overwhelmingly proved here was no material obstruction to the navigation of the river. The gentleman has read in the hearing of the House today a certificate as sworn to, where it is alleged the piers of that bridge are not parallel with the current of the river. I unhesitatingly say those gentlemen are mistaken in regard to that fact. The evidence is clear and satisfactory that the piers are set directly parallel with the current of the stream. This is the fact, as the evidence of Mr. Taylor, the engineer of its construction, clearly shows, who is sustained and confirmed by the distinguished Gentfrom Massachusetts, chair man of the comPostOffice, and other gentlemen of this House, who actually saw for themselves that these men were entirely mistaken in regard to the matter. The bridge itself is not at right angles to the banks of the river. The current runs differ ently from the general course of the stream at this point, and no competent engineer would construct a bridge across so important a river without planting his piers parallel with its current.