Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am very reluctant indeed to occupy the attention of the House one moment longer upon this bill, but it is a public duty which I feel to be incumbent on me to resist, by every means in my power, the passage of this most iniquitous measure. I do not see why the Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. ojjbe surprised to find me in opposition to this measure. I will yield to the gentleman The gentleman ought to know that he always finds me upon the side of the people and against this out rageous legislation in favor of monopolies and against the people. I am against everything of this kind, and I submit to the House that the Gentfrom Indiana has not answered the arguments which I submitted to the House. I submit that he has traveled from the record and talked about other things than the question before the House. The Gentfrom Indiana, I suppose, was one of this junketing party that went over this bridge, [Mr. FARQU HAR nodded assent,) and that he saw the bridge and saw that it was an obstruction to navigation, and I am astonished that my honorable friend, with his undoubted veracity and high. should here, in the face of this house, undertake to say that this bridge, in the light of the testimony of 15 witnesses, ‘is no obstruction., 'Sir, what was the testimony before the committee? I have read it against the bridge the testimony of credible witnesses, in a situation to know the facts, but on the other side interested parties of men who have a pecuniary interest in these measures, while the great people who are interested are left out in the cold and have no voice. Now, as to my distinguished friendfrom NewYork, [Mr. DAVIs, who, in the 1st place, wrote a similar bill, I understand that he is directly interested in the passage of this bill, being a stockholder in this company. I understand that my distinguished friendfrom Massachusetts [Mr. AMEs] has also an interest somewhere in this direction; but I represent no stockholders or railroad combinations, but the people.