Mr. HENDERSON. It is a proviso to a House amendment. It is not to touch the original bill. This bill for bridging the Missis sippi river was introduced here about the mid dle of the session, and was called 11 one morning and forced through this body Without 'vin me much of an opportunit, as I thoug t, o discussing the question. the same question afterward came up upon a bill of the Senfrom Minnesota, Mr. Non'ros, ] and I then took occasion to discuss it much more fully. It has ever been my impression that if the Senate had considered it as they ought to have considered it, no bridge bill would have been passed at this session of Congress. At a subsequent period the ComPostOffices reported an amendment to the river and harbor appropriation bill, requiring the Secretary of ar to appoint a commission of engineers to go out and examine the Mississippi river, and to report to congress at the next session the character of the structures that ought to be built upon that river. If there was any meaning in that, it was this, and nothing else, that no bridge ought to be constructed upon that river that shall be planned by congress without some scientific investigation of the subject. Now, what do we know about bridges? I suppose I know as much about bridges as most of the Senators around me, and yet what do I know about them? We assume. we have assumed by the passage of this bill, to permit individuals after nearly 100years of this Government had elapsed without such a proposition having been made before, to go and construct upon the Mississippi river not less than 7 bridges, low structures, not over 12 feet above the surface of the water. It has never been done before, and we have had, I say, nearly a century of the Government; but never until this session of Congress was a prop position made here to bridge the Mississippi river with a bridge of this character. I know that a.bridge is constructed across the Mississippi river at RockIsland, but not by authority of Congress; and what has been the consequence? Ever since its construction it has been a source of annoyance; a source of destruction to property, a source of contention; and it is a bridge which in my honest judgment will in the course of a few years be colored a nuisance and taken down. We now assume by this bill to put 7 structures, not over 12 feet high above the water, across the Mississippi river. I desire to say, once for all, because I do not wish to take up the time of this body, that I have offered an amendment which if the Senate do not intend to obstruct unnecessarily the naviation of that great river they will adopt. 3efore I consider the amendment, let me ask how would the Senators from NewYork take a proposition to bridge the Hudson river with pontoon bridges. How would they receive a proposition in this body to put these low struct ures across the Hudson river? How would the city of NewYork receive a proposition to bridge the East river between that city and Brooklyn? such a bridge could be constructed with a draw in it that would enable the constructor of the bridge to make millions and millions of dollars in the course of a few years. Let me ask the Senfrom Illinois, who is urging on us the construction of these bridges across the Mississippi river, how he would take a proposition to bridge the great gtrelam passing by Chicago with a low pontoon ri go. The Senfrom Illinois the other day urged upon this body the passage of a bill for the construction of a ship canal around the falls of Niagara. Why? In order to have an unobstructed passage to the Atlantic ocean; and yet be, living at Chicago, while he wants the great StLawrence river to be entirely open to the ocean, proposes to put 7 structures upon the Mississippi river in the way of the navigation of that great stream. How would the Senfrom Michigan [Mr. Howsnn] receive a proposition to throw a bridge across. from Detroit to Windsor, a low bridge through which the commerce of the StLawrence and the great lakes should pass? How would a proposition to brid e the StClair river be received? How won daproposition to bridge any of the streams connecting the great lakes of the West be received? You could not pass such a proposition through this body; but it would be just as reasonable and just as sensible as to pass this prooaition. Mr. President, e great farming interests of this country are not represented liere' I mean to say they are not represented by lobby in fluence outside; of course they are represented here by Senators. We know that gentlemen, representatives of railroad influence, representatives of private interests, have been ere ur ging the passage of these bills during this whole session of Congress. I have said to them, “Gentlemen, put up elevated bridges with a span of 300 feet, and I am perfectly willing that you may bridge this great stream; I will not object if you will give us 300 feet spans and elevated bridges, under which the steamboats can pass with ease, and do not require these bridges to be built immediately upon the surface of the water." I have been answered that it must be put through for the accommodation of the railroads, and noth in else, because everybody knows that such bridges as I have described can be built on the Mississippi very well. A proposition is now made by a scientific gentleman, indorsed by 7 or 8 of the best engineers in this country, to put iron tubular bridges across the Mississippi, which it is said can be put there undoubtedly, without obstruction to the nnvigation of the stream; and yet Congress seems disposed to press forward this thing and to give us nothing but these low bridges. Mr. President, I think that inasmuch as we have provided for the appointment of a commission of competent and able engineers to go there and examine this subject, we ought at least to be willing to receive their report before we undertake to decide this great question for ourselves. Why is it that these elevated bridges cannot do? Why can they not be built? They have been built elsewhere. Why can they not be constructed here? Simply because it will cost the railroads a little money in order to throw up ground upon one side. That is all. Then let them bui d bridges where there are elevated banks on each side of the stream, and not let us undertake to decide this great question for ourselves, we not bein scientific men, but let us take the report of t cse engineers. Now, Mr. President, if the Senate will listen to me while I explain this amendment. I think they will certainly adopt it. If you do not adopt this amendment it is a declaration that you intend unnecessarily to obstruct the navigation of the river. I only provide in this amendment that if the boar of engineers authorized under the laws which you yourselves have passed at this session to examine the Mississippi river and make report on the subject of bridge construction thereon, shall find, and so report, that elevated bridges with continuous spans can be constructed and operated without greater expense I do not say equal expense. but without greater expense to the companies building them than draw bridges, and with less obstruction to navigation, then no draw bridge shall be commenced or constructed under this act. Is not that as fair as could be asked by the companies? What else can the railroad companies of this country ask? If they can put elevated bridges there without greater cost than these low bridges, and they are no greater obstructionto navigation, why, I ask, shall they not put up elevated bridges? If the Senate vote down that propoeitiou, I understand the Senate to say that they are not consulting even the interests of the railroad companies, but that they intend to block 11 that river and to obstruct its navigation, I ether it costs the railroad companies any more money or not; that, irrespective and regardless of the best interests of navigation, or even the interests of the railroad companies themselves, they will put structures there that will in all time clog and hinder navigation upon that stream. If they can build these elevated bridgesand all the navigation interest say so with no more than equal expense to themselves, and they are no greater obstruction to navigation, then in the name of sense why not do it? Who is ready to go on with a low bridge this sum mer? We shall meet again in the course of a few months. Our navigation interests are clam oring against it. None of you would vote to clog up the navigable streams between the eat lakes. None of you would put such a 'dge across them. Then why do you do it on the Mississippi river? Mr. President I say that this act ought not to be done, and I appeal to the Senate, at least if they are determined to pass the bill, to say that if the railroad companies can build elevated bridges without greater expense to themselves and without greater obstruction to the navigation of tberiver, they shall be required to do it. Is there anything unjust in that? Surel not. f this amendment is voted down I sh l forever hereater understand that the Senate have intentionally obstructed the navigation of this stream, that they so design, for the benefit of the railroad companies of the country, or for the purpose of c anging the course of trade and business.