Mr. MORRIL i. I do not object to the recommittal of this bill. I have not paid much attention to the details of the bill at any time, but I know something of the history of this canal. That this cute rise would accomplish what is so much desire by the city, I am quite persuaded. This canal is indispensable to the propersewerage of the city; but instead of its answering that pu use now and in the past, it has been, as the Senfrom WestVirginia has well said, a nuisance; it has answered no purpose. I am satisfied that if you connect with the general object of sewerage the enter prise of commerce, you willalways have connected with that of sewerage an active principle which will keep the sewerage in a condition to make it effective. Therefore I am in favor of combining the 2 things, and I believe it is practicable; I believe it is the best measure, all things considered, that I have yet seen. Now, as to this question of who owns the canal, judging from the use that has been made of it, I should think nobody owned it. Nobody has seemed to claim ownership over it, and nobody seems to have exercise much owner ship over it. I have no doubt the equitable interests of the Government in it are vastly supedorto the interests of any other party. I do not understand that the city undertakes to exercise jurisdiction over it as against the government, and, in fact, in repeat and numerous instances, they have declined to exercise any jurisdiction over it, saying that it was within the power of the General Government. There is a bill now on our tables, introduced in the other House, contemplating an improvement of this canal, upon the principle that it is.chicfly the interest of the Government to make this improvement, and I believe it proposes to appropriate 4 or 500,000 dollars on the part of the Government for the improvement of this canal. I therefore desire to say, before the bill is recommitted, that I am in favor of the general objects of the bill, and believe that it can be best accomplished in connection with some active enterprise, such as is contemplated by the corporators in this bill. the pRESIDINGOFFICER. the question is on the motion of the Senfrom own to recommit the bill to the ComDistCol. The motion was agreed to. CLERK OF DISTRICT SUPREME COURT. On motion of Mr. MORRILL, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.43) to prescribe the mode of settling the accounts ot the clerk of the supreme court of the DistCol. It provides that the clerk of the supreme court of the DistCol shal pay into the Treasury of the U.S. all the earnings of his office, over and above the necessary expenses and his own compensation. His accounts of the earnings an expenses are to be adjusted by the regular auditor of the court, or by a special auditor to be appointed by the court for the purpose, within 30 days after the lst day of January and July, every year; and the auditor is immediately to report his adjustment to the court with such exceptions thereto as the clerk shall, within 4 days after the adjustment reported, take and file with the auditor. The court is to pronounce such decree upon the report and exceptions as may seem to it equitable and just; and the decree is to be fina(l, and be binding upon the U.S and the clerk. If, upon such account, a balance be found due from the clerk to the U.S., the court is to order pament by the clerk into the Treasury, and enforce its order by execution, process of contempt, or otherwise; and, if the clerk refuse to pay the money, remove him from office. If a balance be found due from the U.S. to the clerk, it is to be paid upon presenting to the Treasurer a copy of the decree, duly certified. The clerk as in other cases of judgments to which the U.S. is a party is to furnish the Solicitor of the Treasury a copy of the decree immediately after it is pronounced.