Mr. ALLEY. The Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. wASHBUBNE has occupied his 30 minutes chiefly in to.king about matters that it seems to me have little relevancy to the question immediately before the House, which is, whether the House will vote in favor of making Clinton bridge apost route or not. He has talkedagreatdealaboutthe RockIsland bridge. I have always believed that the RockIsland bridge was badly constructed, was badl situ ated. And if that question was beforethe house today it would not receive my vote. But it has no parallel in any respect with the one in volved in the question belore the House. The Clinton bridge bears no sort of comparison with. the Itock Island bridge in its position, or in its structure, or in many other important particulars. It will be recollected that the House voted the other day to alter the RockIsland bridge and change its location, for reasons which I will not stop to relate. But it is not true, as the gentleman states, that there have been so many accidents and so much property destroyed even at that RockIsland bridge. His statements are gross exaggerations, so far as my information extends, even with regard to that bridge. But there is no use in wasan the time of the House upon that point, for it ins nothing to do with the question before the House. But allow me to say in regard to this Clin ton bridge and the amount of property de stroyed in consequence of it, that it has been in Speratimi 18 months and but 2 acci euts have occurred, one entirely immaterial, by striking the bridge oning through bya boat, and injuring ils or a little, which did not detain it a single our, and which did not subject it, I suppose, to an expense of 50 dol ars. The other accident was the sinking of a barge, which was the result, according to the testimony, of the grossest carelessness, if not of design. Some charge upon the parties a design to sink the barge. It certainly was an exhibition of the grossest carelessness. Now, in regard to the letter presented by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Monitumn] allow me to say those statements must be incor rect, for they are the statements of an interested party, a party strongly interested against the bridge. The sworn testimony before the committee was that the draw was 120 feet in the clear, while the party whose statements have been read say that it is but 116 feet.