Mr. CONNESS. The object of the resolution that passed the Senate. as I understood it when it passed, and the board of engineers apointed under it, was to taction if possib before the summer month: in reference to the foul condition of this canal. ldo not know whether the action now being taken by that board of engineers will give us that result this year. If it can result in that, it will certainly prove that we have taken a very wise step. doubt. however, whether there will be any prac tical results arising from that action this year. The main purpose of this bill, I desire to say, seems to me to be a very good one, that of so deepening this canal as to make it a thorough means of sewerafle to this city, and also passing a stream of fresh water through it; but it is apparent to my mind, from what has been said and from the observations I have made of the case myself. that the bill will have to be recommitted and reconsidered before it is in a condition to be passed. I believe thata grant to a corporation of this canal, holdin them bound to a.strictperformance of the conditions, is really the wisest disosition that can be made of it. The control of the canal, as it has existed between the Congress of the U.S and the corporate authorities of the city of Washington for a great many years, has evidently resulted in nothing but neglect and the Worst of the conditions that. follow neglect. If placed in the hands of a corporation, under properrestrictions and upon proper conditions, requiring them to execute what will be necessary to the complete establishment and carrying out of the ilan, I think it will be a wise measure, indee, to pass. As to the question raised by the Senfrom NewHampshire in regard to private and public properly, I do not see anything in that. There is a great difference between private and public property. Private property is always subject to be condemned and taken for public uses, while public property belonging to the U.S. is always devoted to public uses, and may not be taken. It is subject to grant, it is true, but it is already devoted to public service and may not be taken. But there isan additional reason why care should be taken in regard to this grant that is now being made. You are granting corporate rights to a company within the jurisdiction of another corporation the corporation of this city and the bill should be so carefully guarded as to give rise to no conflict of rights or privileges or control as between the 2 corporations. The city should always have the right, without let or hinderance, and at.the same time without unnecessary damage or interference with this corporation, to control the sewerage, and to use the canal to that end and for that purpose. That is not clearly expressed in the bill as it now stands. It a ipears to me that it should be recommitted an subjected to avery careful examination. The design of the hill, I think, is a good one, and I should like to see it carried out. I hesitate to make a motion to recommit because the bill is not in my charge, but I think that would be the best plan, to recommit it and let the subject be fully considered.