Mr. FTHOMAS. Then I will vary my proposition. I will ask the chairman of the ommittee for the DistCol [Mr. Isosasott] to take the sense of the House now for or against these amendments. if it be his purpose to insist upon those amendments, or rather, I refer to one in particular, then the bill will have one character. If it be his purpose to ask the House to reconsider its action in that respect, and to refuse to amend the bill as the gentleman himself proposed on last Friday then the bill will have another character. I Wish, therefore, that the gentleman would now have this question of amendment disposed of, so that the House may have the bill up tomorrow, not in 2 aspects, but in one only. The polnt to which I wish to call the attention of the gentleman is this: there was a section in this bill, as it came from the Senate, which assumes that the rights granted to the city of Washington in this city canal have been forfeited to the Government. The same section also assumes that the rights which the Chessapeake and Ohio Canal Company enjoyed east 0? Rock creek have also been forfeite to the Government. If I remember aright that is the 2nd section of the bill. The Senate thought proper subsequently to incorporate into the bill a provision to this effect: that no rights are to be disposed of under the provisions of this bill but those which the U.S. may possess. When the bill was under consideration in the House last Friday, the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Iuusasou. move to amend that lastscction, which "says that no rights shall be granted except those which the U.S.may possess, by insertin the words except as herein before provide, ” or words to that effect. In other words, he was disposed, as I then supposed, to abrogate that section which was inserted in the Senate, and to sutfer this subject to go before the commissioners, who are to be appointed under this law, to condemn all these interests, under the assumption that Washington city had no title, and that the Chesapeake and Ohio canal had no title to this property. ow, if the Gentfrom Illinois means to insist upon that amendment, it will give the bill one character; if he does not intend to insist upon it, then the bill will have another and an entirely different character. I wish, therefore, he would signify his determination one way or the other in regard to that amendment. Does he adhere to it, or does he desire the House to abandon it?