Mr. FOSTER. Mr. President, the question before the Senate, whether it be regarded as the bill or the amendment moved by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, it.seems to me is one of more importance than the Senate appear to consider it. The bill itself comes before us under rather peculiar circumstances. It seems to me a little singular that a bill so important as this should be reported to the Senate with no document connected with it from any Dept, without one word from the committee reporting it; simply the naked bill. That, as it was sent to the committee, is reported back, without anything in the form of report to inform the Sen. ate either of the necessity for the bill or of the ground on which the committee recommend its passage. It is true, the honorable Senfrom Indiana, a member of the Naval Committee, has stated with his usual clearness and force the reasons why the committee favor the bill; and the honorable chairman of the committee, not going into the general question, but speaking more directly to the amendment, has enlight ened us, as he always does when he addresses the Senate upon any topic which may be under discussion. But certainly it is usual in this body, and I should be sorry to see that usage changed, when a subject of so much importance as this comes before us and we are asked to vote upon it, that we should have a report, something in an authentic and enduring form on which our action may be based. There is nothing of that kind in the Present case, and I repeat that it is singular peculiar. The honorable Senfrom Iowa, seems to think that in the amendment proposed by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts there is nothing that can obtain the vote of anyone but the Senator who offered it. Now, sir, if I mistake not, there is in the amendment, as it regards the general subject matter, all, and in deed more than all, that there is in the original bill. What does the bill propose? The honorable Senfrom Iowa says the amendment does not propose the building of a navy yard, or indeed the doing of anything, or authorizing the Secretary to do anything. His objection to the amendment is that it amounts to nothing. Now, let us see what the bill proposes. It purports to authorize the SecyNavy To receiye, and acceptfrom the city authorities of the city of Philadelphia the title to League Island, in the Delaware river, and adjacent marsh land, including the whole of the creek known as the Back Channel, from the Schuylkill to the Delawarerivers and all the riparian rights and privileges of League Island, adjacent marsh, said and Back Channel, together with so much of the opposite shoreof the Back Channel from the League. shoreas shall in the opinion of the SecyNavy beample to enablethe Governmentto have the sole and exclusive use of said Back Channel and both shores thereof; the saidisland andappurtenances to be held for naval purposesby the Governmentof the U.S. That is all the bill proposes to do, that we shall acquire what I have read, “to be held for naval purposes” by the U.S. That is about as vague and indefinite as anything can well be, and amounts to as little, my word for it, as the amendment can amount to, be that ever so little. But the amendment, in my judgment, is not at all obnoxious to the objection made to it. I call for the reading of the amendment again, that it may be seen in connection with this bill whether it be the pure nihility which the honorable Senfrom Iowa seems to suppose it is.