Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senfrom ndiana can satisfy himself that this is an appropriation of money for the purpose of fencing in the Mississippi river, he may find authority to vote this appropriation; but that is not the object of this appropriation; it was not thought offer the improvement of the Mississippi river. The object of it is to protect the lands from the waters of the river, and not to improve the navigation of the stream. It is not placed upon that ground; and although it is a favorite argument of the Senator to suppose, as he has on several occasions, that because money was appropriated to take care of a whole race of people who as a consequence of the war were thrown upon the Government, therefore you could find authority in the Constitution for any appropriation whatever. I must say to the Senfrom Indiana that I think there is no analogy between the cases. I take it that in the prosecution of the war and in the putting down of the rebellion the Constitution gave express authority for the armies to take possession of this country and take possession of its'iuhabitants, to put them in risen, to treat them as risoners of war, an to feed them. Because toGovernment had authority to put down the rebellion by force of arms, to capture the enemies of the country and the iuhaitants of the rebellious regions, if necessary to put down the rebellion, and imprison and feed them, it by no means follows that when the war is over the Government of the U.S., not for the purpose of putting down a rebellion or suppressing an insurrection, but for the purpose of enhancing the value of private farms, as a right to appropriate money. That is all there is to this; it is an appropriation to help private individuals to make moncy from their plantations, and the Senfrom NewHampshire says that the nation will be benefited by this, because if you will build these fences around the hintations of these former rebels you will eualile them to plant a great deal more cotton; you tax the cotton and you will derive a larger revenue to the Government! Why, sir, I look upon all such arguments as very far fetched. They would apply just as well in any other portion of the country as in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. on might just as well appropriate money to build houses and fence farms in any other portion of the country and say if that was done the inhabitants of that locality would be enabled toraise larger crops, and as we tax the wealth of the country, the incomes of farmers, their incomes would be larger, and the Government would thereby derive a larger revenue. I do not think this Government will ever get rich by appropriating money to enable farmers to cultivate larger crops and then collecting a tax from the farmers. I look upon all such arguments as farfetched. But, sir, I do not Wish to take time upon this matter; the ycas&nays are called for, and I am willing the senate should decide it.