Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I understand the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. ALLEY]. to impose the gag rule here today. He does not propose to yield the floor entirely, so that this question can be fairly discussed, but he proposes to hold the previous question to close the discussion whenever he pleases. Now, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have never been more surprised in my life than I was yesterday morning when I was notified that this proposition, which was considered by the House at the last session and indignantly rejected, was to be again sprung upon us yesterday morning. Other matters intervened, and it has come over to us this morning, I am surprised, sir, that the Gentfrom Massachusetts and the postoffice Committee should, after a measure has been fully considered and discussed and rejected by this House, undertake to spring substantially the same measureupon the without having given the people who are interested any notice of what they were doing or any hearing before the committee. Sir, they suppressed all information of what was going on in relation to this bill, and the 1st notice I had of it was yesterday morning, when the committee were called on to report, and I was advised that they intended to report this bill. Sir, it would seem to the uninitiated that there was something extraordinary in this matter. Great questions of public interest great questions in which the people are interested are regarded as of subordinate importance. When there arises a measure by which corporations or a few individuals only are to be benefited the people go to the wall; they are allowed no hearing. Gentlemen may recollect something of the discussion which took place in reference to this bridge at the last session. Here was a bridge which I know, and which every pilot and steamboat man upon the Mississippi river knows, to be a material obstruction to navigation. This fact has been sworn to by 50 witnesses, whose testimony was before the ComPostOffice. But there is a great mammoth consolidated corporation, the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company, which is getting into its clutches all the railroads of the Northwest. This mam moth corporation, in conjunction with other roads, and in conjunction with the Albany Bridge Company, has built across the Missis sippi river a bridge which is an obstruction to navigation. At the last session, Congress with the concurrence of the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. ALLEY] considering this whole question of bridges, deeming it absolutely necessary that there should be bridges over the Mississippi river, provided by law, how those bridges should be i. We provided a certain breadth of span, and made other provisions which would render it certain that those bridges would not be material obstructions. But, sir, this Clinton bridge, built by these corporations, obstructs the navigation of the Mississippi river, and does not conform in any respect to the requirements to which other bridges are made to conform. The Gentfrom Massachusetts now has, I must say, the audacity to come in here and ask this Congress to relieve this stupendous and remorseless monopoly from the expense of making this bridge conform to the requirements which apply to the other bridges on the mississippi river. I ask gentlemen here whether they are prepared to do this act of injustice. What reason is there that this bridge, owned by these corporations, should be taken out of the general rule prescribed for every other bridge? But the Gentfrom Massachusetts has “traveled” somewhat. Probably he went out with other members of Congress on a junketing expedition, and went over this bridge. The railroad officers, with their magnificent car filled with wines and turkeys and other goo provisions, took some of our members of congress, including, I presume, our distinguished friendfrom Massachusetts, and showed them this bridge. With not a steamboat within sight, with no means of practical observation, they said, “Do you suppose this bridge is an obstruction to the navigation?” “Oh, no; not at all. We do not see why a steamboat cannot go through. We do not see why the rafts and barges which the hardy lumbermen from Minnesota and Wisconsin float down the river those barges which bring down grain, a part of which goes to Massachusetts to feed the shoemakers of Lynn we do not see why these rafts and barges cannot go through.” ð. no, they could not see. I will not say that after dining they were not in a condition to see. [Laughter] At any rate the gentleman says they did not see. Well, sir, here, in a document which I hold in my hand, is what some men have seen, men, who have navigated that river to my knowledge for 15 or 20 years. What do they say in regard to matter of obstruction? These are not hontohri.s able members of Congress. Oh, no; they are nothing but plain pilots and steamboat captains and engineers. They are not supposed to know much, suppose; and they have in this House, I presume, “no rights which white men are bound to respect.” What do they say? “The undersigned, pilots, captains, and experts in the navigation of the Upper Mississippi river, and owners of boats engaged, in the navigation, of o: Mississippi river, being duly the aun” sworn. state on This is a statement under oath. The member from Massachusetts, I believe, was not under oath when he made his statement, although his word is just as good as his oath anywhere. These men certify under oath. “that they believe the bridge across the Mississippi river at Clinton, Iowa.” This is the bridge in question “as at present constructed as I very material obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi river; that they each and, all have had experience in the navigation through the draw of said bridge, and speak from actual experience and knowledge: that the same causesgreat risk to life and property in passing through the same, and causesgreat delay and loss to owners by detention on account of wind or darkness at times, when but for the bridge that portion of the river could be run with perfect caseand safety. “That the said bridge is located where there is a curve in the river, and the piers are set down at angle an of from ten to 15 degrees to the current, causing great difficulty in the approach to the draw, and danger of collision. “That the draw is only 120 feet in width, and the difficulty is greatly increased when boats have barges in tow.” I ask my friendfrom Massachusetts what he provided at the last session of Congress as the width of the draw of every other bridge? 160 feet, making a difference of 40 feet in favor of this bridge of these monop olists. It was provided that every other bridge should have a certain span, but that this shall be legal with only 20 feet. I ask, in all candor and earnestness, what is the reason for that difference? Is it because you do not want to tax these combined railroads a few 1,000 dollars to make their bridge to conform to others? Is that what you are legislating for?. If so, I do not think you will have many friends along the line of these roads, which are charging so enormously for fare and the transportation of freight that they have become utterly odious and accursed of our people. It says that this draw is only one ioi and 20 feet, and that the difficulty is greatly increased when boats have barges in tow. Let me tell gentlemen here in regard to these barges in tow. It is undoubtedly going to be the means of transportation upon the Mississippi river, some boats having 15 or 20 barges in tow, after we get the impediments to navigation removed, from the falls of StAnthony to NewOrleans, before breaking bulk. In that view the matter becomes of vast importance. Why, sir, the damage of one single fleet of barges at this bridge, as you pro: pose to legalize it, by the danger of shifting and other delays, would amount to 3 or 500 dollars. This the people of the North west, the people of Massachusetts, and the peo: gle everywhere, will have to pay in the increased cost by the added cost of transportation. That is what it means when these railroads come here and ask us to legislate in their favor. Here is another statement, that the average width of a large boat, including guards, has nearly 60 feet, and the additional width of 2 barges would be about 50 feet more, so that only ten feet on each side is allowed. That is when they have only 2 barges, one on each side, but where they have a fleet of harges of 15 or 20, 5 or 6 abreast, where are they? They say. where there is a current this margin is entirely too small for safe navigation even in calm weather, and when there is any wind, or it is dark, the danger is greatly enhanced. o. This sworn statement is signed by 20 men, captains, pilots, and engineers. I do not wish to argue this question at length. It was argued as far as the gentleman would permit at the last session of Congress, and when we voted on it it was rejected. I thought it was dead. I did not think we would hear of such an impudent proposition again. If the gentleman had advised me of what he intended i.have brought other testimony. I would have brought instructions from the Legislature, I would make the voice of the people heard here if the voice of the people could penetrate these walls in regard to these questions. But they laid low, they kept dark, they met and agreed upon this bill and sprung it upon the House, and demand we should pass it under the previous question. One word more. The gentleman says I did him injustice when I said he undertook to gag the bill through. Gentlemen will recollect how it was. He did not propose to give me more time than from 3 to ten minutes, and I would not accept it; I would not take that time in a matter involving millions of loss to the country. The gentleman carried the previous question by 3 votes. Then I demanded the yeas&nays on ordering the main question, and believing he could not carry it the gentleman under the force of circumstances yielded me 30 minutes. If that is not as near a gag as you can come, I do not know it. And now, instead of having this matter fairly discussed, he withdraws the demand for the previous question, holds the floor, and allows me but 30 minutes. It is more than I wanted, however, for I think even in so short a time as I have taken I have explained the matter satisfactorily to the House. At any rate I will reserve the balance of my time to answer the Gentfrom Massachusetts.