Mr. COBB. I hope that the House and the Chair will overlook any little irregularities in the manner of presenting the matter, inasmuch as the Gentfrom Illinois, [MningER SOLL] who has heretofore had the management of this bill, is now absent. I did not enjoythe privilege of being present at the discussmn which tooiii place some 2 or 3 weeks a 0 between the Gentfrom Maryland [It Mr. ff. Tnonas] an the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. Incensouh] I did come into the Hall just as the Gentfrom Maryland was concluding his remarks, just ns the morning hour expired, and I naturally supposed that he had been occupying the floor during the whole of that hour. In have misrepresented him in this respect I cheerfully make the amende honorable. Now, sir, I do not intend to weary the pay tience of this House by following or attempting to follow the arguments of the Gentfrom Maryland in opposition to this bill. I will make but a few remarks, when I will yield the floor to my colleague on the committee, the Gentfrom Ohio, [ML wELKER] or any other member of the committee who desires to be heard on this subject. At the expiration of my hour I propose to call the previous question and to let the House take such action on this bill as may be deemed proper. The Gentfrom Maryland opposes this bill in the interest of his constituents. He in formed the House that to pass this bill would be, in his 0 inion, a direct robbery of his cen stituents. certainly, sir, if that be the fact I, as well, I believe, as all the other members of the committee, have labored under the grave misrepresentation of the facts by the action we have taken. This matter was pretty ther oughly discussed in the committee by all the parties who desired to be heard in op position to it. Among others, it was discuss by the Gentfrom Maryland. I must confess that the views he expressed in the House to day are in great part new to me. We also heard the objections urged on the part of the city authorities, as well as on the part. of some citizens of Washin ton. I believe all these objections werefully and fairly considered by that committee. I believe that no member of that committee felt any desire to do injustice to the city authorities or to the gentleman’s constituents. Nor, sir, do I believe that committee has been actuated by any feeling of ani mosity to the city authorities or to the honorable mayor on account of political principles, or by any other consideration than that growing out of the merits of the case. Certainly, so far as I am myself concerned, I can say that no such feeling has actuated me. As has been already said on this floor, about the 1st object to which the attention of the ComDistCol was called on our appointment at this Congress was the condition of the Washington city ca nal; that it had become unmanageable to the city authorities; that they did not possess the means of properly keepin it so as to prevent it becoming a cause of sicness and probably contagion in the midst of the city; that the limited means of the city would not enable them to put it in proper condition, and it was therefore desired that the Federal Government should take it out of their hands. That was most industriously ressed upon the committee for a considerable length of time; that it was a great nuisance in the midst of the city; that the city was unable to take care of it, and that the Federal Government must make an appropriation of considerable magnitude in order to prevent its continuing to be agreat nuisance. Among the various propositions on this subject and there were a good many made or sug' gested one was this: to take this off the hands of the Government upon the terms set forth in this charter. Now, sir, I for one am a little cautious about entertaining these propositions to charter companies on the part of Congress. I do not favor them. I believe it is the duty of Congress to reject nearly all that are presented ere. Among them allI believe this is the only one that l have favored in committee or am likely to vote for inCongress. But as a sanitary measure, proposing to remove this great nuisance and to enable this great city to take care of a public work which they have on their hands but which they never ought to have been burdened with, I surrendered what objection I had to voting for a private corporation incorporated by the last Congress, and particularly because from its very nature its operations would be confined in a territorial point of view to the DistCol. Now, Mr. Speaker, the prominent argument embraced in the remarks of the Gentfrom Maryland, [Mr. FTHOMASnonas] the a ument to which all others seemed to tend an the one which had been made before the ComDistCol, not only by that gentleman, but by a great many others, seems to be this: that you propose to grantthis franchise to a foreign corporation. The changes have been rung on that word “foreign, ” not only here, but in the committee, until it has satisfied me at least thatitis the chief objection to this bill. If these corporators were citizens of Maryland, of the gentleman’s district; or still better, if they were citizens of the DistCol; or still better than all, if they were of a favorite class of citizens the Carrolls, for in stance some of those old historical people, I do not think you would have henrdp much objection to the passage of this bill. But they have the misfortune, I believe, to be citizens of NewYork, Pennsylvania, and some other States; and hence their resumption in coming before Congress and asili'ing for an act of in corporation, particularly if by that act of incor poration they obtain the right to disturb some of the soil of this District, strikes the mind of certain gentlemen on this floor and elsewhere with very great horror. New, sir, in regard to the claim of vested rights which this Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, or the States of Virginia and Maryland, have in this old canal, I think it either goes too far or falls short of what gentlemen expect of it. We do not propose by this act of incorporation to interfere with any of the rights of corporations. We do not come in and say that they shall not form whatever connections they please with this canal on one hand or the other. There are no exclusive privileges granted in this bill that I am aware of. It only grants to these men the right to di a cane. suppose the gentleman’s argument would 0 to this extent, that the Government of the HU.S. was bound for all time to come to refrain from doing any act or settin up any work or anything anywhere which cond by any possibility come in the way of on future extension which this Chesapeake an Ohio Canal Company might choose to make. Most certainly such is not a fairinterpretation of the law which the gentlemen himself read. ehave no objection, and this bill raises none in any respect, to the Government of the U.S. keeing faith in this compact, as the gentleman cal s it, with Maryland and Virginia. But certainly when the Government established this Capitol or the Treasury buildingit was not infringing upon vested rights. At the same time, I do notsupposethe gentleman would claim that it won (I be proper for that canal company to run its extension t rough the grounds set apart for the Capitol oft e nation. So I do not think that that argument ought to have any great weight with members of this House in their action in regard to this bill. There is one thing which I think must strike members of the House as noticeable. This canal running through the city of Washington was 1st projected about 70 years ago. It has been in some state of operation for nearly that length of time. The Chesapeake and Ohio canal has been built over 30 years. This opportunity for extending its canal through the city of Washington has EXISfedduring all of that time. It is supposed that.some years ago there was considerably more business done in this portion of the country than there is now. If Ilhave not been misinhmed the business of Washington and ofihe adjoining country, and particularly of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, was formerly vastly greater than it is now. I believe the bordering country, with its towns and cities, did a greater business, and had a greater amount of transportation, 20 years ago than it now does or is likely to do for a considerable time to come, judging of coming events by the shadows they cost before. And still this vast opportunity for running coal down to tide water and for making profitable a desirable investment lias lain he entirely neglected and unnoticed, not only by e gentleman’s constituents, but by the citizens of this District and city. I am told that for 15 'ears this canal has lain entirely neglected, acknowledged on all hands to be a seething ool of corruption in the midst of a considerable city, without any effort being made on the part of capitalists or anybody else to improve it for navigable purposes or take care ofil: and prevent its remaining dangerous to the public health. Mr. Speaker, the Gentfrom Maryland takes exception to the 10th section of the bill in regard to the form in which this company is authorized to condemn property. I do not pretend to be 'osted on the peculiar laws of this District. The bill of rights of which the gentleman speaks I su.pose is one of the heir ooms left to the co c of this District by the government of llIhry and I know that it is one of a class of questions which have caused a considerable amount of discussion. I do not think, however, that the gentleman’s conclusion is correct. that any portion of the constitution of Maryland can iiave the effect. in the DistCol to make so fair and so equitable a provision as this unconstitutional and void. If it would be void as an enactment, I need not say to the gentleman, or to any member of this House, that being void it would be entirely harmless. But if not void it is then a.fair and equitable provision. It is exactly such a clause as is usually putin acts of incor poration throughout the northern and western States on the subject of condemning property for the purposes ‘of constructing railroads and canals.