Mr. J. M. HUMPHREY.Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how a bill that has 2 objects only, one military and the other commercial, should have come into this House without having been referred to the Military Committee or to the ComCommerce. I submit whether, from the circumsthnces, there is not something behind or back of this bill than what appears on its face. Again, Mr. Speaker, talk about this bill as a military necessity while the whole power of the Government is engagedto prevent the Fenians from invading the rovince of Canada. Yet we are asked to engage in an enterprise to build a canal to cost 6 millions under the pretense of a militar necessity. Should the time ever come, as I believe and hope it never will, when there shall be a war between this Government and England, this Government will need no ship canal as a means of defense. In less time than we shall require to fully discuss this bill there will beorganized men enough on the Canadian border who will take possession of the canals and territo of anada adjoining our lakes and rivers. rIt is a perfect absurdity tqJalk about this as a military neces sit. It has been well said by the gentleman who preceded me that by treat between our government and GreatBritain we can have but one vessel on Lake Ontario and 2 upon the upper lakes. How, then, will we be benefited, no es that treaty be abro ated, by opening a communication between Lae Ontario and Lake Erie? Shall we be able to get any vessels from the sea board in time of war through 500 miles of the Gulf and river StLawrence in the territory of the enemy? I tell you, so far as the proposition of military necessity is concerned, it is one of those devices which designing men, who understand well how to a peal to the patriotism of our people just at this time. have resorted to in order to cover up and hide the real design they have, which is, to get a large donation of money from the Federal Government for their own private ben efih I appreciate as well as any member of this bod the great importance of the commerce 0 this country, and I was sorry to hear the honorable member from Ohio [Mr. SPALDIxo] speak in terms that seem to me to be disrespectful to the people of the State of NewYork, which I have the honor in art to represent. He intimated that the peop e of the State of NewYork did not comprehend the magni tude of the commerce of the West. I want to ask that gentleman if he is aware that there is more vessels with a greater tonnage enters and departs from the ort of Buffalo in one day than goes in and out 0 his beautiful city of Cleveland in a whole season. And yet the people of the State of NewYork are charged with not have in due appreciation of the commerce of the est. Why, Mr. Speaker, upon the question of western commerce, and e means that should be taken for the purpose of promotin it, no State has a recur iipequal to that o the Empire State. As early as 1817, inspired by the foresight and sa acity of one of the noblest men that ever live in this country, De Witt Clinton, NewYork engaged in the enterprise of constructing the Erie canal, a work the design and purpose of which was to connect the waters of the ocean with the waters of the cat inland lakes of this country. Within 5 years after that design was conceived the work was entered upon by the State authority, and in about 7 years it was carried to a successful termination. At that time the beautiful cities of the West existed only in imagination. But the states man of NewYork saw that all that was necessary to build up an empire there was to open this communication. What other State has done any such thing 7 Did the Federal Govcnment do any such thing? At an expenditure of about ten million dollars that canal was constructed. Since its construction it has been enlarged until the State has expended more than $100,000000 to furnish an adequate avenue by which the commerce of the West may seek the markets of the East. And yet we are told that the people of that State have but a very feeble apprehension of the importance of the great West. Why, Mr. Speaker, in addition to this, the State of NewYork has chartered and its capitalists and enterprising men have built 2 railroad lines running the entire length of the State from east to west, and on these works 100more million dollars have been expended, and all this for the simple purpose of opening avenues for the commerce of the great and growing West. I submit that when we take these facts into consideration, and when we take another fact also into consideration, and that is, that the capitalists of the State of NewYork own to day more than 3/4ths of the whole commercial marine upon the western lakes, and that it furnishes 75 dollars outofevery 100 dollars that is used for the purpose of paing for and transporting the ain om the est to the markets of the inst I say when we consider these facts, no intelligent man will undertake to say that the people of the State of NewYork do not comprehend the magnitude of this commerce or neglect to furnis the means of transportation to market. Thus much in vindication of the State of NewYork and its people. Mr. Speaker, this bill involves a proposition to which I call the candid and grave attention of this House a proposition by which the federal Government proposes to override the sovereignty of the fitates in the protection of their own domain and their own people. This bill proposes that the Federal Government shall go into the State of NewYork, and without the consent of the State take possession of the soil, assert the right of eminent domain and build a canal around the falls of Niagara. If this can be done, I undertake to say that as far as the States of this Union are concerned they have surrendered and lost almost the entire power that they once possessed under and by Virtue of the Constitution. If the Federal Government may go into the State of NewYork and say it is a military and a commercial necessity that this should be done, what is to prevent it from building another canal through the length of the State, and imposing such tolls, or none at all as it may see fit? Or what is to prevent the Federal Government from constructing another railroad along the line of the present railroad through the State? And what the Federal Government may do in the State of NewYork it may do in every State of this Union. Mr. Speaker, if we examine the legislation of the Federal Government in the past, I an dertake to say that we cannot find a single instance where any such power as this has been asserted and acted upon. The very charter of one of these Pacific railroads I have not examined them all provides that where it shall pass over the unsettled lands of the Federal Government it shall have a right of way, but it also provides that where it passes through a State Minnesota, for instance it shall do so only with the consent of that State; thus reco nizing the right of a State to protect in fu I its own soil and to protect its own citizens. I ask gentlemen ere who are ready and willing to ook into this question to say whether this be not right. This bill proposes that the Federal Government shall enter the State and take possession of so much of its territory and the ro erty of its citizens as may be necessary to liuilil this work, and then to transfer the property and rights thus acquired to a corporation. t not only does this, but there is a section in this bill which authorizes that corporation to make its own laws and regulations independent of the State authorities, so that it Will leave the corporation which is to build this canal in the peeition of being alittle government of itself within the limits and jurisdiction of the State of NewYork, and at the same time independent of its laws and authority.