Mr. WELKEIL Mr. Speaker. this question is not a new one in the Congress of the U.S. For a great number of years it has come before Congress in different. ways for different purposes. The form in which it presents itself at this time is this: there passes through the city of Washington an old canal, which everybody admits to be a nuisance, and hence the question arises, what are we to do with it? shall we fill it up or shall we clipend the public money in order to abate the uni sance and to im.rove it for some purpose or other? This bilicomes to the House from the Senate, having passed that body, and is designed for the accomplishment of these purposes: 1st, a sanitary purpose to get rid of what is admitted to be a nuisance to the city of Washington; 2nd to furnish a sewer afle; and 3rd, a navigable canal for the city. For 25 or 30 years this old canal has been a common cess pool for this city, and for erhaps the last 15 or 20 years it has been the receptacle of the sewerage of the city of Washington so that it is now found to be, as I have remarked, a great nuisance, pressing earnestly upon us the question, what shall we do with it ‘I This bill proposes to organize a canal and sewerage company with this 3 fold object. In the 1st place, the sanitary purpose should interest as all. It had been decided b the board of health of this city that this runs was a nuisance, and that if it be not abated in some form or other it would invite the cholera during the approaching heated season. The 1st object, then , of the bill is to get rid of this nuisance for the purpose of bringing about a better sanitary condition. The next proposition is to make. a common sewerage for the city. All admit that it is necessary for a great city like Washington that there should be ncommon system ofsewera e, and this is provided foria the bill. How? this company is required to dig this canal ten feet deep an to put running water through it Within a certain period of time, so as to remove the impurities which now render the canal so detrimental to health. By this means a 1st class sewerage will be provided for the city of Wash ' in ton. n the next place, the bill has a commercial view, being designed to make a navigable canal through the city for commercial purposes. It is said to be ver desirable to the interests of the city of Was in ton that this improvement should be made and thus afford easy access for coal as well as other trade to the city. But it is said by the Gentfrom Maryland that by incor oratin this company we shall deprive the Chesapea e and Ohio Canal Company of rights which they are entitled to and he also urges that by the provisions contj'oty;e bill we undertake to seize a great property or franchise now owned by the city oi3 Washing ton, the old Washington canal. Now, so far as the canal is concerned, this bill simply proposes to give to this company whatever rights the General Government has in that canal. It undertakes to give no other right. If this government has no right in this canal, this company will receive no interest under the provisions of this bill. The bill does not uu ertake to settle the ownership of this old canal. It does not determine whether the city or the government owns it. If the Government owns it, it gives its use to the company. If the city owns it, then it only confers the right upon this company of ordinary condemnation 0 private pmpei ty for this class of improvements. So far as concerns the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, the bill does provide that this company proposed to be incor orated may construct a cana and sewerage a ong or near the line of the Cliesa cake and Ohio canal for a short distance on the west of 17th street up to the line of the corporate limits of George town. It is provided in the bill that this company may go through this part of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal or along the side thereof, or near it, and make a connection with that canal at Georgetown. If, however, they do use it, they are bound to pay for it, just as they are compelled to make compensation under this section or any other property they may see proper to take with a view to the completion of this canal. Now, it is a notorious fact that for ninwr ten 7 years that part of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal has not been used. On the contrary, it has been allowed to go to waste and destruction. It has been useless for all purposes of navigation. If it had been so valuable as the gentleman says it was during that period it strikes me they would have improved it, or at least have kept it in repair. Now, this bill does not undertake to cede or take from anyone any rights in any other way than by condemnation in the manner irovided in the bill. The Gentfrom Maryland says in the Constitution of the U.S. there is no authority to make an assessment of damages which may result from condemnation of property as provided in this bill. The gentleman will no doubt remember that under the Constitution in many of the States property is condemned under like provisions to those in this bill. Until the new constitution of Ohio was adopted, much of the property condemned for railroads and canals of that State was condemned under commissions similar to the one here provided. There may be objection to the mode of assessment, but there is certainly no constitutional objection to the assessment in this wav.