Mr. YATES. I have but a very few words to say on this subject. I am somewhat surp‘rised at the course taken by the Senfrom issouri; indeed his position is a very strange one. I live in a State bordering upon the Mississippi; the Mississippi runs some 400 miles, ifI mistake not, along its bor der. I represent an agricultural State, perhaps one of the grea est agricultural States. We are very much interested in the navigation of the Mississippi. There are 13 States upon the banks of the Mississippi which are interested in the navigation of the river, containing ten million people with all their commerce. We proposenot to obstruct the navigation of the Mississippi by any means whatever. We believe that the people of this country can enjoy not only the navigation of the Mississippi but also can have railroad transportation and railroad facilities. Why, sir, the transportation, the travel, the freight by railroad is incalculably more than that down the Mississippi river. The travel and trade of this country are not North and South; they are East and West. Railroads from all over the eastern States cross the Mississippi at various points, doing an immense trade, carrying on an immense travel. Railroads are the highways of the people nowadays; we travel by them almost alto ether. It is no use at this late day to try an make water transportation rival transportation by railroad. We are not proposing to obstruct the navigation of the ississip i, but this trade and travel must have an out at West. The people of northern Missouri must have an outlet to the East and they must have an outlet from the West. The people of the State of Illinois must have the same facilities. The people of Kansas. Morrill the whole land are interested in the construction of these bridges. The amendment of the Gentfrom Missouri is simply to postpone and retard progress in the right direction. I would not 0 ject to his amen ment, but would let his amendment be adopted, if it were not applicable to the construction of the present bridges authorized by the bill. Let him have his investigation in regard to his submarine bridges; but the commerce and trade of this country now demand some means of crossing the Mississippi river. Why, sir, look at the obstructions there are now in getting across the Mississippi river from the various points where railroads terminate on the East and on the West, the obstructions which are occasioned by having to ferry that river. At some seasons of the year it cannot be ferried; the water is either too low or the river is frozen over. Must all this trade, must all this commerce. must all thesehighways of the peoplebe stopped simply to gratify interests which are immediately situated upon the line of the river? The people of Quincy, the people of Burlington, the people livin in the cities along the Mississippi river, Hanni l, Palmyra, and all those points, are just as much interested in the construction of these bridges as they are in the navigation of the Mississippi river. They are equally interested in each. We propose not to obstruct the Mississippi river in any particular whatever. I admit, with the Senfrom Missouri, that we should not obstruct the Mississippi river, but I do not admit that because these railroads are prosecuted by private capital therefore the railroad companies will necessarily build defective bridges. Bridges have been constructed all over the U.S. by private enterprise and private capital. If men are here from various parts of the West or the East, from StLouis, or elsewhere, to try to lobby measures through Congress, how can we help it? Men must come here to present their applications before Congress, to explain their prop positions, and have them understood. It is necessary nowthat these bridges should be constructed to meet the demands of commerce; to meet the requirements of business, of trade, and of travel now. We cannot wait for the investigations that are proposed by the Senfrom Missouri. I hope his amendment will not be adopted.