Mr. HENDERSON. I doubt that very much. I do not think a man by merely owning land within the sovereignty of a State has a right, by virtue of that, to erect a corporation endowed with the franchise of constructing a bridge and taking tolls on it. I think, under all the circumstances, that if this company in sist on building the bridge between now and next January, if they insist on ettinga part of the material there, it should e with the understanding that it shall be a continuous span bridge until we can know more about this matter. It is of very great importance, in my judgment of vast importance; and yet we considered it the other day in the course of an hour and passed a bill setting the precedent for bridging this great stream with these pon toon bridges, as I call them. They are an immense obstruction; I have been so told since the passage of that bill by steamboat men. In fact the Chamber of Commerce of StLouis has sent a large delegation here to protest against it in the name of the people of the West. cannot say how far they represent the interest of the people of the West, but they are very earnest about it. Gentlemen may say it is because StLouis is deeply interested in this matter. StLouis has no more interest in it than any other part of the great West; any other portion of it is just as much interested as Stouis; but they come here protesting and saying that with a span of 160 feet, as we provided the other day, bridges on the river will materially and permanently injure commerce upon the river. We can lose nothing by adopting my amendment and saing that if this company proceed to build at a luntil we can get a report, it shall be a continuous span bridge, and I be e the Senfrom Minnesota [Mr.RAMSEY] wi I push his resolution, urge it forward, and let the board proceed to the West to report upon this important question. It is an important matter, and it ought to be looked into with more care than we seem disposed to look into it now. I know that the learned Senfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Cowau] 3 years ago, discussed the nestion on behalf of his State in regard to the bridging of the Ohio river. Now they are proceeding to put up the right. sort of struct ures on the Ohio river. Why not compel it to be done upon the Mississippi river? lhey are not utting up pivot and drawbridges upon the Ohio river, but bridges that accommodate the commerce upon that river as well as the commerce across the river. It can be done, and done easily, and done to the great satisfaction, not only of the people of the West, but the people of this entire country. These great navigable streams, made by nature, are better than therailroads, even if they were made b the hand of the Almighty. As I have be ore said, you have nothing to do but to construct the cars to run upon these navi gable streams, and companies and individuals can carry freight and passengers cheaperthan the railroads, yea, for 1/3rd the cost of carrying them upon railroads. Why, then, shall we obstruct these great arteries of commerce made to our hands by nature and by the heneficence of the Almighty? Why shall we, in odr puny efforts to make better the commercial channels made by Him, go to work and obstruct those channels, and say to man that we have improved upon the works of. nature? Mr. President, let us keep these channels, and let us build others. I do not object to building others; but my desire is to put no obstruction in the way of commerce, either upon the rivers or upon the railroads.