Mr. FARQUPIAR. I do not yield, as I cannot spare the time. I desire to say in this connection that there was evidence before the committee that impartial and disinterested men from other portions of the country tried experiments by floats upon the river, giving them free way in the current, and the result was that they went clear of the piers and betweenthem, showing that the current of the stream was directly parallel with the length of the piers. Gentfrom Illinois says that hereaf.ter from 15 to 20 barges will be towed by a single boat from the headwaters of fo the to the Gulf without breaking bulk, but he forgets or omits to say that steamboat men only place one barge upon each side of a boat, the others being towed to the rear, and that the bridge affords ample space for that purpose. But there is stronger evidence than that to sustain this case. The bridge was completed in December, 1864, more than 2 years since, and there is not a case of damage or injury established, with a single exception, during the whole period of time from then. now. No material obstruction whatever has resulted from the construction of this bridge to the navigation of the Mississippi river. While the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WAsh BURNE] charges that 60 barges and boats have been destroyed at RockIsland bridge, the fi.has not dared to charge before this House today that more than a single craft has been injured at this bridge. And, sir, there are suspicions it was run against the bridge to make an experimental case to test whether it was a legal structure or not. Yet the gentleman would ask the committee to come into the House and in the face of sworn evidence, and after deliberate examination, to decide it was an obstruction to the navigation of the Missis sippi river. We could not do it and serve our constituents; we could not do it and serve our country; we could not do it and stand before this House and the testimony in this case. But we come here impartial and disinterested, as much so as the gentleman can be, taking the facts as they came before the committee. This bridge is one of the finest structures, not only in America, but in the world. It cost over 500,000 dollars, and the whole purpose of the gentleman seems to be to tear it down because it belongs to an incorporated railroad company. My friend says the House decided at the last session that these bridges should be 160 feet span. A and suppose the Gentfrom . Illinois had favored a change during the war of the standard height of enlisted men, would he therefore, because of the increased height, discharge all the rest of the men who had been taken into the service whose height did not reach that standard?. Yet that is the principle he proposes to apply to this bridge case. Because Congress required in anticipation of the fact that there might be a time when that length of span would be required, he proposes to tear down this bridge which has a span of less than 160 feet. I would say to that gentleman, Bide your time, “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Let me say to the House that when this bridge was being constructed the railroad company whose road now passes over it were seeking a terminus on the Missouri river, and they employed engineers to examine and report upon it. They reported that the draw of this bridge, which is 120 feet, was then the widest span for a railroad bridge known in the civilized world. Now these men, knowing that fact, believed that it was all that would, be required. They built this bridge, a structure so substantial and so permanent, reflecting such a credit on those who built it, that it jbe doing gross injustice to them, to the country, and to the commerce thereof to refuse that protection guarantied by the provisions of this bill.