Mr. DAVIS. The honorable Senfrom Illinois takes aview of a single point of this subject, as he is prone too often to do in relation to other subjects. Now, he presents the profit upon an investment of $1,500,000 to the Government, and he loses sight entirely of the other large classes ofinvestment in this matter. How much is the land worth? From 50 to 100 dollars an acre. How much is the labor worth? One hand, from 150 to 200 dollars a year. How much is there invested in agricultural imple ments, how much in stock, how much in provisions? 50 fold as much as the Government is asked to apiropriute for the purpose of reconstructing these levees; and all this large investment outside of this meager amount of appropriation from the Government is on the individual credit and funds of the planter. But, Mr. President, I rose to present one ointof this case that has notyet been presented in the argument. It was once my fortune to reside upon the banks of the Mississippi as a cotton p nter for a short time, and I know the matter by experience and observation. These levees sometimes are 60 feet in width at the base and they are ten or 15 feet in height. They extend for miles arid miles along the mar gin of the river, and at some stages of the river it is a common sight to see the steamboats moving along upon the river3 or 4 feet higher than the cotton fields that are blooming and exanding their white folds on either bank. Why is this? The water is fenced into its natural channel by these numerous and gigantic levees, and in that way the navigation of the river is improved, the flow of the water is confined to a narrow and restricted channel, and the effect of this confinement is that the bosom of the water flows sometimes several feet above the surface of the cotton fields on either side the torrent in full cultivation. Now, Mr. President, what is the Mississippi? It is one of our great natural channels of commerce. I have heard it called, not innptly, the Mediterranean of the U.S. The commerce that flows upon its bosom is bound less in its quantity and inits value. Along this eat natural channel of commerce is it not egitimate and constitutional for the General Government of the U.S. to appropiriate money to improve the navigation of this editerranean of the U.S.? This magnificent river disembogues itself into the Gulf by 6 or 7 different chan: nels. These channels fill up with sand. No man can comprehend the character of that stream who has not looked upon it day after day, and seen the mighty forces that are operating upon it in the movement continually of sand, the filling of channels, the formation of embankment! upon one side and the inundation of lands ipon the other. I ask the honorable Senfrom Illinois if it is not a ier fectly legitimate exercise of power for on gress to appropriate money for improving the navigation of this mighty stream. What has been done by Congress for the Delaware? A vast sum of mone was appropriated to build a magnificent breakwater. Why? To improve the navigation of that stream and to construct an artificial harbor for the protection of commerce. The honorable Senfrom Michigan struck the right key when he said that Congress has the power to make this appropriation under the provision of the Constitution which invests in Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the several States. When these levees have the effect at many points and for miles and 100s of miles upon that magnificent river to circumscribe the waters within its channel, so that they shall float several feet above vast cotton fields and sugar plantations, and in that way improve the navigation of the stream by increasing the depth of the water, what appropriation can be more legitimate, and wiser, and more constitutional, than for the purpose of repairing these vast levees that conne this stream within its natural channel? The honorable Senfrom Illinois says that there is no power in Congress to make this appropriation. Let me put a case. I have voted again and again for protective tariff bills. One of the main incidents. objects of such bills was to increase the profits of our manufacturers. If any gentleman were asked, has Congress the power to appropriate money to increase the profits of its mauu acturers, he would answer in the negative; but Congress has power to raise taxes by levying imposts upon foreign goods imported into the country, and as inci dental to this power to levy taxes upon foreign importations, we discriminate so as to afford protection to certain manufactured articles. was always taught that policy by the great father of the American system, an as one of the humblest of his pupils I have often voted in obedience to that lesson. The honorable Senfrom RhdIsland [Mr. SPRAGUE] or his father and other northern manufacturers have again and again bygmyvotes had the profits of their business increased incidentally in imposing taxes discriminating upon articles, with a view to protect domestic manufacturers when we had no power whatever to give any such direct protection. The honorable Senfrom Illinois will concede that as a great national channel of commerce we have a right to vote money to improve the passes at the mouth of the mississippi river. As they fill up with sand, we have ordered dredging machines and other apparatus to be made to dredge out and to deepen these channels, and to open up the commerce from the Gulf to NewOrleans, the emporium of the Southwest. We have a right to appropriate money to build these levees originally for the purpose of confining the water to the natural channel of the river, and to deepen that water, and to enable our commerce to float more commodiously uppn it to that great south western emporium. hen we have the power to do this directly for the purpose ofim proving the navigation upon the stream, if incidentally and collaterally to that we see vast fields where formerly grew cotton and sugar submerged, and in consequence of being submerged not fit to be cultivated, have we not a right at the time we prepare these levees for the purpose of imroving the navigation of the stream, to look incidentally to the protection from overflow of the cotton and sugarfields? Certainly we have; and in that point of view the appropriation is legitimate, and it results constitutionally and properly from the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States.