Mr. Van HORN, of NewYork, ] and myself, will occupy the remainder of his time. desire to call the attention of the House to the importance of a ship canal around the falls of Niagara on the American side, not only as a military measure, but as a commercial necessrty. in the latter view, it is needed and demanded by some 15 States of this Union. There are directly interested in its construction some ten million people. I propose to occupy the brief time allotted me in 1st asking the consideration of the military aspect of the question. It is well known that by the treaty between this country and GreatBritain neither nation is allowed to have more than one armed vessel on Lake Ontario and 2 on the upperlakes. But by means of its natural rivers and the construction of different canals Canada or the British Government can at any time build and accumulate gunboats or other war vessels and precipitate them upon the lakes; and all this preparation it can make in its own waters and of course without infringing the international treaty. It was stated a year ago, whether correctly or not I cannot say, that GreatBritain then had 100 gunboats ready, if need be, to throw them upon Lake Ontario. It must Wergotten that Lake Ontario is the key po.itio of the lakes if we are at war with GreatBritain, or, what is the same thing, with Canada. We had upon that lake a single vessel only to meet that force; and we by the terms of the treaty could have no more, and we had no rivers or large canals upon which we could build and store more, and have them in read iness. Now, one object of the construction of the Niagara ship canal is to enable the U.S. in case of war if need be. to make use of our large upperlake fleet of vessels. which could be speedily fitted for such use. On On tario our merchant marine is outnumbered. On the upperlakes we greatly outnumber the Canadian or British marine. It may be said that there is no speck of war on the northern frontier at the present time; that therefore this is but a contingent danger to be provided against; that we can guard against that, if need be, by volunteers or militia that may be called into service. I an swer that the experience of the war out of which we have come, shows that even with a half million or million armed men we could not, or did not, guard effectually the Baltimore and Ohio railroad or the Baltimore and Cumberland canal, so as to prevent forays or raids. such an experience shows that the great and long canal of the State of NewYork, so necessary and so important to the West and East, is liable to be pierced and broken at any time by a hostile invasion. There is another feature in this case. Between Chicago nud Ogdensburg, there are some 1400 miles of natural naviation, with the singleinterrnption of the falls of Niag ara. Cans a on its side has constructed the Welland canal, 42 miles in length, with a 2nd opening on the lake, shortening it to 32 miles, with 28 locks of the dimensions of 180 by 26 and shelf feet. This bill proposes toconstruct a canal around the fa ls of Niagara, making the distancebuteight miles, with much larger capacity in prism and in size of locks. Thus, in case of difficulty with Canada, instead of having 150 miles to guard to Erevent interruption of commerce between the ast and West, we should have only 8 miles to protect. Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be said that this is now a mine r consideration. I admit that it has not the importance which it once bad. But when it is considered by this House that on those inland lakes there floats a commercial interest twice greater than the entire foreign commerce of the U.S., it is manifest at once that there is on these lakes an interest that should be cared for. While we are making appropriations year by year to build and fit up an strengthen fortifications to protect our Atlantic coast, is there not a reason why, in a military point of view, we should have respect to the great interests of the North and of the West to be seriously affected and impaired in case of war by a direct interruption of commercial communication 1 An orderin council now shuts at any time the Welland canal against American bottoms, and since the termination of the reciprocity treaty this may be done without a moments previous notice, as there are no treaty stipulations to preventit. Besides, the Canadian authorities discriminate already against American commerce by refunding to Canadian vessels 90%. of the duties, and exacting 100%. of the duties paid by American vessels, unless these American vessels discharge their cargoes at Montreal or some other Cana dian port, or go out to sea by the way of the Gulf of StLawrence. These are reasons, in a military point of view, which to my mind have a direct bearing on the propriety of the construction of this canal by the Federal government. In a commercial point of view it is stated, and with truth, thatthe commerce of the lakes has vastly, rapidly increased. In 1840 the 1st vessel left Chicago with 3000 bushels of wheat for the East. 5 years afterward the shipping trade of the lakes with the East was so large that Congress was called u pon and passed a special act extending the a miralty and maritime jurisdiction of the Federal district courts to the lakes and navigable waters connecting the same. 6 years later, in 1851, the constitutionality of that act was raised, and after solemn argument was settled in the Supreme Court against the technical objection that as there was no ebb and flow of tide those inland lakes could not be covered by the aegisof admiralty. ln delivering the opinion of the court, the Chief Justice took the broad ground that, tide or no tide, these lakes were, in truth, great inland seas, bordered by difierent States on one side and having on the other a long foreign frontier line of 3000 miles; that on them already existed a great and growing commerce between numerous States and a foreign nation; that on these lakes hostile fleets had encountered each other; and admiralty jurisdiction had already necessarily been, indirectly at least, extended and recognized. To such importance and magnitude had commercial interests and rights thus early grown (1851) that he held, substantially, it would be contrary to the 1st principles on which the Union was formed to confine admiralty rights and privileges to States bordering on the At lantic, and to tide water navigation therewith connected, and to deny such rights to the citizens who border on the lakes. Certainly the ChiefJustice intimated such was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution, one object of which, with them, was a perfect equality in the rights and the privileges of the citizens of the different States. not only in the laws of the General Government, but in the mode of administering theni. lhateqnalit does not exist ifthe commerce on the lakes is enied the benefits and the protection which the constitution secures to the States bordering on the Atlantic. Of course I refer to Chief Justice Taneys opinion in the well known case in Howards Reports, known as the Genesee Chief case. Now, sir, if it is found that the present have nues of commerce and trade are inadequate, and it has been found by observation and by instrumental examination that only within the State of NewYork is there that natural dip or depression of land lying north of the mountain ranges and south of the frontier line, then we must look at existing outlets or easements of trade and commerce in operation or projected within the boundaries of that State. Now, within that State is the NewYork and Erie railroad, which does what it can; the NewYork Central railroad, which also does what it can; and there is the NewYork and Eric canal, 350 miles in length; adding 10%. for the 614 feet rise and fall of elevation, makes a working length of 414 miles; a canal of narrow prism, of numerous locks, and which is simply able to receive and carry boats of 224.ton sburden. It has been stated by the official authorities of that State that for 3 years the capacity of that canal has been tested to its utmost to provide transportation for the products of the States of the great West connected with or bordering the upperlakes. When the State of Illinois has but one 8th of her land under cultivation; when the other States of the West have but one 10th of their land under cultivation, with present facilities and there is no immediate prospect of their increase what is to become of the products of these States ten or 20 years hence, when they shall have, perhaps, the half of their tillableacres under cultivation? Where will they find an outlet? Shall we be told that they can go down the Mississippi? That may answer for certain portions of the cereals of the West, wheat, the but it is very well known that there is a serious objection to that route by reason of the heat of the climate for the transportation of corn to and its exort from the port of NewOrleans. If I reco lect aright, never in any single year has the export of corn from the port of NewOrleans exceeded 250,000 bushels, while the Erie and Oswego canals of the State of NewYork alone have transported a million and a million and a half bushels a year. But even if the Mississippi river was deep enough, and its channel rendered navigable for boats all the year round, still there would be an objection to it on account of the climate, because the corn would heat and become damaged and of course depreciate in value. The products of the West must, therefore, find an outlet by northern and eastern routes, or it must be burned for fuel or distilled into spirits or fed to stock or rot upon the ground, as it has sometimes done of late. Now, by the construction of the Niagara ship canal, 8 miles in extent, the expense of transportation is greatly lessened; and there will be several outlets from Lake Ontario to the sea board and the cat depot of this continent, namely, NewYork city. Therefore, there will be no danger of accumulation there. But, as my time is limited, I will pass to another point. The State of NewYork. standing midway between the West and the East in that respect, by or through her canal Officers, strangely assumes the position that this canal will injure the revenues of the Erie canal, and therefore it should not be constructed. Butin another breath they admit and insist that the canal interests of the State of NewYork have been quite remunerative and productive, cost in in round numbers, interest, loans, damages, enlargement, “ pauperlaterals, ” &c. all told, S 100,000,000; and thatbetween 83 and 84 of these millions have been returned to the treasury of that State, leavingonly some 15 or 16 millions of disbursement exnse and unreturued. The Erie canal proper as paid for itself and $9,000,000 more. what right, then. has the State of NewYork to claim that that canal, with its narrow rism and its yet more restricted locks, should require, as it does, that the commerce of the West, however great shall be forced through it to market, whether they desire it or not; at all events, such portions of it as cannot go down the Mississippi, and such portions of it as are too bulky and weighty to be transported upon the railroads? The very statement shows that no wrong is done to the treasury of that State if the national government makes this a national work.