Mr. FTHOMAS. I the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Summaaaaosn] had waited 5 minutes for I am hurrying on in this discussion, knowing that it is not generally interesting to the House; but I know that my constituents would never forgive me if I were not faithful to their interests on this occasion if the gentleman had waited a few minutes, I would have anticipated the very suggestion which he makes, and would have convinced even his clear mind that this bill cannot be passed with any propriety, even should I concede, as I do not, p)“ the positions taken by the Gentfrom hio. 1st, let me say the Gentfrom Ohio seems to have overlooked the fact that the chairman of the ComDistCol nullified, by an amendment of a very few words, the very section which the Senate inserted out ofabundant caution. The section sets forth that nothing shall be affected by the act but the rights and interests of the U.S. The amendment nullifies all that by insert inv the words “except as hereinbefore provided;" and I shall show resently, if I have time, what was “hereinbe ore provided.” But, Mr. Speaker, let the Gentfrom Ohio bear in mind that that part of the Ches apeake and Ohio canal proposed to be seized, east of the west bank 0 Rock creek, cost only about 106 or 108,000 dollars; and ifthe parties under this mostanomalous bill are called on to pay this amount, what becomes of the investments of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, amounting to $500,000 more, expended beyond the west boundary of Rock creek, expended in the construction of canal locks, 4 in number, and bridges over the canal, 4 in number; what becomes of that investment? These corpo rators are not to pay for it. They are to seize as a mere locality that part of the property which they need. They are to approriate to their purposes that part of the canal which lies east of the western bank of Rock creek. They are to estop the Chesapeake and Chip Canal Company from the opportunity of getting into the basin at Rock creek, and of passing out into the river Potomac or into the Vashington canal. They are not to pay the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company for their investment beyond that point. No one will suppose that this company is to be remunerated on an expenditure of nearly half a million dollars l by collecting toll upon the articles transported upon the canal for a quarter of a mile. A ain, this company now proposed are not required, and Congress cannot authorize them, to go inside of the boundaries of the State of Maryland and take possession of and pay for the dam across the river Potomac beyond Georgetown, within the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland, without which the Washington canal will be of no value; without which this grant will not be worth the paper upon which it is written. Congress is to interpose with a high handed authority and give this new company the right to condemn all that part of the work which the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company have made up to a certain point, giving this new company the advantages of all the structures up to that point; while those beyond that point cannot be of any exclusive advantage to the Chesapeake and Ohio CanafCompany. And the commerce of the Chcsa wake and Ohio Canal Company cannot pass that dam and reach a market without paying tell to this new company. I think that this ought to be considered an answer to the su gestion of the Gentfrom Ohio. My mind had swept round that comparatively small matter in this case; andI had intended to develop it in the course of my re marks. But gentlemen will excuse me for saying that I do not consider this trespass upon the vested rights of the corporation of which I have spoken the only violation in this case of what I call the pledged faith of this Government. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that if I could look at t iis Washington canal through the me dium of the functionaries who for the time bein are at the head of the local government of Washington, I would not utter one word in their defense; they might find a defender elsewhere. Fe: I disapprove emphatically and decidedly of their whole car er, more especially of the recent course of their mayor, this “' captain of a pinnace, ” who undertook to hector and lecture the representatives of 5 and 20 million people because they did not happen to coincide with him in political opinion. If I could be governed by such considerations, I would not say one word in defense of the vested rights of this city in the Washington canal: But I do not look at the question in that light. I do not allow differences of opinion to degenerate with me into personal unimosities. I do not permit the false steps of the representative for the time being of a community to prejudice that community in my judgment. I look beyond such considerations. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company may be governed by gentlemen who are by no means in accord with my political views. Washington cit is governed or the time being by corporate offibers who, I admit, are not exactly in accord with my views. I look beyond that. Why, sir, we might say of the representatives of these corporations as Banqno said of the witches when they disappeared upon the heath without answering Macbeth’s interrogatories: The earth hath bubbles as the water has. And theseareof them." I look at communities, I look at Washington city, the great commercial emporium of the district I represent, nearly as much identified with the interests of a large portion of the district I represent as the boasted, and Iam proud to say justl boasted, commercial emporium of Marylan, Baltimore. I look forwar to the day when halfa million, nay a million, of people may be located upon these wide plains so beautifully prepared by nature for the erection of an immense city. And why not? We see Paris standing upon the banks of the Seine, a river inferior to the Potomac for commercial purposes. We see London on the banks of the ‘hames, a river inferior to the Potomac for commercial purposes. We have, as all know, access to cheap fuel for this city, one of the most important elements in building u a large city; and our access to this inexhaustible supply of fuel is by means of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal. When, therefore, I speak of the question which I am about to open up, I speak of it with reference to the future, not with reference to Mayor Walluch, of Washington; not, with reference to any of the present function aries of this city. Certainly I entertain respect for Mayor Wallach personally. He is an accomplished gentleman, courteous in every particular. My conflict is with the opinions, not with the man. Now, sir, I say I look to the day when this is to be a great city, when this canal is to pour into this great city the agricultural productions of one of the most highly cultivate and fertile regions of country in the whole Union; when this canal is to pour into this city all the productions of that magnificent valley of Virginia, stretching from Harper’s Ferry to Stannton; [look to that day and I act on these questions in reference to such a day. The boy is now born who may see one million people settled round this common center of one common Government. I will pass to some other points, as it is my design to be as brief as possible. I have examined the laws touching this Washington canal, and I find no mention made in Maryland legislation until 1795. It is there spoken of as an existing work. It would be right to infer from that law that it was built by private enterprise and by private capital. I see at the head of the parties to whom the Legislature of Maryland in 1795gave the right to raise $50,000 by lottery, DaniehCarroll of Duddington; and I know he was one of the proprietors of the land upon which this city was built. That charter authorizes those who began the canal and nearly built it to raise $50,000 by a lottery. When this law was passed Congress allowed Maryland to exercise jurisdiction here before the seat of Government had been removed from Philadelphia. The next law referring to this canal is the act of Congress of 1802, by which Congress gave a charter to the same identical individu als to whom the lottery had been granted, and gave them corporate power; and then, in 1812, Congress gave to the same individuals the right to raise money by lottery for the completion of the canal, as authorized by the act of Maryland 0f1795. I will not trouble the House by reciting the subsequent acts, but it is enough in this narrative to say that subsequent to that date the corporate authorities of Washington bought the original property right of Daniel Carroll, of Dudington, and his conperators, who had complied with all the requirements of their charter, and had cut and opened the canal. The interest of each individual stockholder was purchased by the corporation of Washington in 1832, with the consent of Congress. Cougress then passed all the laws necessary to vest that property in the authorities of Washington. The authorities here obtained it without any aid from the General Government whatever. At that time the canal terminated at the base of the mound on which this Capitol stands. Much of the stone used in the center building of the old Capitol was transported on that cana for the convenience of the Government. The botanical garden and the propagating garden of the Agricultural Bureau, now lying outside of the inclosure of this Capitol, were then a morass, and the land was valueless. Concress passed a law authorizing the city of Washington to appropriate for its own uses any land it might redeem by changing the location of the canal to its present site. The city of Washington incurred an expense from the commencement to the conclusion of this work of $377,000. Washington city incurred the expense with a change of the locality of the canal. Subsequently an arrangement was entered into by which Washington surrendered to Congress all claim and title to the redeemed land I have mentioned on condition that congress would furnish money to aid in the completion of the canal. I know much has been said outside of the House, and it may be said inside of the House, about the aid the Government has furnished to the authorities of Washington. I beg gentlemen to bear in mind this aid was not a donation, a free offering, a gift without consideration by the U.S. The original proprietors gave the Government much of the ground upon which Washington now stands. j I remember 30 years ago, when this subject was analyzed and examined, but I do not intend to pause long on this point. A debit and credit account was started charging the Government of the U.S. for every dollar they had received from public lands, the donation to the Government by the original proprietors, and crediting the Government with every dollar expended by it within the jurisdiction of this corporation, and the balance was largely in favor of the city of IVashington. Suppose this had been a free will offering; suppose it was a donation made by the government of the U.S. to this city to aid in completing this canal, should it be reclaimed by Congress wantonly, without just cause, in mere caprice; and to give it to whom? To the people of the U.S.? No. But some ten, 15, or 16 speculators here who are pressing upon us and trying to “dragoon” this HoRep so as to get possession of this large grant. There is a section in this bill, Mr. Speaker, which directs, points out, and prescribes the mode and manner in whicln'eal estate in this District may be taken by these corporators and appropriated to their corporate purposes, which is in itself very objectionable, but that does not cover the point to which I shall presently refer. It is objectionable because it is in direct conflict with the provision of the Constitution of the U.S. which guaranties to every citizen the right of trial by jury where an amount equal to 20 dollars is in dispute. It is in conflict with the bill of rights of the State of Maryland, which is in force here, and which grants trial by jury to every citizen. In reference to the condemning of real estate for corporate uses, the law of Maryland, in accord With this bill of rights, requires that there shall he not only a fair hearing, bu the aring by a jury. the judges of the circuit court are authorized by this bill to appoint commissioners, who are authorized to value all rop erty, other than the Washington cans, required for this new canal company; and if the Judges do not like the report a new commission is to be appointed, and thus commission after commission is to be appointed until the judges are satisfied. Judges who have no knowledge of the locality are thus to assess the damn es. They are to have the whole power under this bill, and the great right of trial by nry secured to us by the Constitution of the [IU.S and the bill of rights of Maryland is ignored. These judges have the sole right to repudiate every valuation submit ted for their approval until they meet with one that has their sanction. That is the provision of one section of this bill; and then there is another section very curiously put in another part of the bill which authorizes the taking of this Washington canal, from the mouth of Ti ber crcck to the Potomac river, without paying one dollar for it. The bill will show that I am right. Is there to be found anywhere such a grant in the laws of any country governed by a written constitution? Why, sir, if the Washington city corporation have forfeited the grant that Congress gave them in 1832, are they not entitled to a trial before you execute your writ? Are they not entitled to a quo warranto from a court of justice? Have they not a right to examine witnesses, to try the issue. whether they have forfeited their rrant or not? Is it becoming in a Congress of the U.S. without a hearing, to take $377,000 of properly in this canal owned by this city and ive it to a few individ equalswho are non-resi cuts of the city, who will incur none of the responsibility of paying the debts that this corporation has incurred? Sir, I would dwell much longer on this subject, but I pass it by. I know that there is aprejudice in the minds of members of Congress against the canal company of Washington on account of the manner in which they have exercised the powers and privileges granted to them. I know the city has been reproached about the condition of that canal, inside of its limits, which it is proposed now to give to this new company. But let me say a word or 2 in extenuation, which I believe will findaresponse in the heart of every unprejudiced man who hears me. The Chesapeake and Ohio canal was origin ally badly constructed inside of the limits of Geor etown. The bridges crossing the canal were uilttoolow. A loaded boat sinking deep in the water would pass under them to the Rock creek basin, but unloaded would float on the surface and could not return. Then it was the capitalists of western Maryland, interested in the coal trade, resorted to another outlet. They built a great aqueduct, aided by Congress, across the Potomac, at Georgetown, and a canal to Alexandria, at a cost of $1, 250,000. They built wharves at Alexandria from which they could ship coal with convenience, but, sir, this aqueduct was found by the chief of the quartermaster’s deptto be indis ensuble to his purposes during the war. t was seized by the Government and used as a bridge for transporting supplies, &c., to McClellan’s army. 'lhat bridge ins not been surrendered to this hour. All the means, therefore, for the transportation of coal and produce on the bosom of that canal are still appropriated to the use of the U.S. Seeing this obstruction to the trade of the canal, I turned my eyes in another direction for an outlet, and in the last Congress obtained an appropriation, with the sanction of the SecyWar, of $13,000, to be expended in elevating these bridges. These gentlemen now making application for the surrender of this Washington canal to them, appreciate the importance of that improvement as giving an outlet for the trade of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal to pass into the Washington canal. It is now proposed the shall have this part of the Chesapeake and bio canal and the Washington canal without paying interest on investments that have been lying unprofitable for 20 years. These gentlemen ofcourse saw another thing, and I saw it. Why, sir, I would maintain the bold proposition, and expect to have a fair hearing on it, that it is the duty of Congress to give to the Ohio and Chesapeake canal a new outlet, since the Government has appropriated the old outlet to its purposes. et we ask nothing of that kind; we only ask to be let alone, “ hands off, ” for there is a value in this property now which will develop itself. But saw, and saw at once, and these gentlemen saw, the immense change that is to be produced in the country which I represent, and in this city too, by the elevation of these bridges enabling that trade to come here, and the boats to be unloaded on the banks of this Washington canal. I foresee what a relief that will be to this commerce. And if any gentleman wants to understand iIt, invite him to go to Georgetown and see the wretched fix tures there for the accommodation of this trade.