Mr. HENDERSON. [here is onevotcthat I feel I ought to have on this bill. I do not intend to argue it. I argued the question a day or 2 ago. It is in reference to draw bridges or continuousspan bridges. I desire to make a motion in that regard, as my constituents in Missourihave requested of me to do so. I do not see fit to read the documents that l have received on the subject from various towns on the Mississippi iver, and from individuals, engineers and Others, and steam boat men on this subject, as I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate. suffice it to say hat I have been requested by a very large number of individuals, commercial bodies, &c., in my State to resist the construction upon the Mississippi river of any bridges except contin uous span bridges. It is the opinion of some Senators here that draw bridges can be constructed so as to be of less obstruction to navigation than continuous span bridges. The Senate will remember that 2 years ago we authorized the building of a bridge at Steubenville. The late lamented Senfrom Vermont (Ju] dne Collamer) was at that time chairman of the ComPostOilices. He reported a bill for the building of that brid e at Steuben ville, the 4th section of which provided for the construction of any bridges on the Ohio river, and required that the continuous spans, if the bridges were built with continuous spans, should be 300 feet in length. remember that when the late Senfrom Vermont reported the bill, he stated that if individuals wanted to construct such bridges they might attempt it, but his belief was that no such bridge could be built; that it was an utter impossibility. I learn from the Senfrom Ohio [Mr. Susanna] that a bridge has been constructed at Steubenville 90 feet high, and with a continuous span of 300 feet, and that it is operating well; that the railroads are using it, and drawing across it the largest freight trains; that there is no difficulty whatever. It is true the bridge cost a good deal of money, about $900,000; but it is said to be one of the most substantial and permanent structures everbuiltin this country; it is a iece of bridge architecture perfectly wonde l in itself. Inasmuch as it has been demonstrated by the construction of that bridge that the views and opinions of individuals a few years ago were not correct, and that a brid e of that character can be constructed, I thin it would be better to adopt the continuousspan project on the Mississippi river. My impressmn is, that it is of less obstruction to the river than drawbridges. At least, that is the view of all who have written to me on the subject. In all the communications that I have received since this subject was introduced here, and since my colleague introduced a reposition to bridge the Mississippi river at t. Louis, I have not received one that did not express a preference fora continuous span bridge. It is not impracticable anywhere. I know it was said in 1862, when the bill for the Stenbeuville bridge was passed, that it was perfectly impractipable anywhere. There are always any number of arguments to be adduced as to the impossi bilit of a project. A bridee constructer remared the other day, I think very and forcibly a tly, that there was no impossibility with 1 the merican people; that he had ceased to sn 7pose that there was any impossibility. hen the Senator talks about the impossibility of a construction of this character, Ithiuk he misses the mark. I am not disposed to think that the inventive genius of the American people will now fail them. 4 ears ago we tiought it was an utter impossi bility to build a bridge across the Ohio river with a span of 300 feet, but the thing has been done. Evervbody says now that it is a perfect success. There is no objection to bailing such a bridge across the Mississippi river. It can be constructed without any doubt. But in order to test that one question, without making an extended argument on the subject, because I know the Senfrom Ohio IS very anxious to get up the postoffice appropriation bill, I move, in the 14thand fteenth lines of the 2nd section, after the word “ act, ” to strike out all down to the word “bridge” in the 18th line. The clause now reads in this way: That any bridge built under the provisions of this act may, at the option of the fompanglbuildini the same. O built as a draw bridge, wrt a Divot, or other form of draw or with unbroken or continuous spans: Provided. That If the said bridge shall be madewith unbroken and continuous spans it shall not be of lesselevation, the If my motion should be adopted it will read thus: That any bridge built under the provisions of this act shall bemadewithynbroken and continuous spans and it shall not be O lesselevation. &e. That will strike out that portion of the see Ition which leaves it discretionary with the company organized under this bill to build draw riges, and it simply brings up the uesiion as to whether draw bridges shall be bui ton the Mississippi river or not. That is the plain, nakedquestion. If m reposition should be adopte it disposes of the draw bridges, and all bridges built must be built with continuous s mans. 1