Mr. CONN 1588. Very well. The Senator culls my attention to another provision in this section which I desire to read, for I Wish it distinctly understood that I have no interest in this case; last in the committee as ajuror and heard all that was said. The 2nd prom in this section the Senator claims, and perhaps correctly, should be construed in connection with the 1st part of the section. That proviso reads thus: “Andpromlicrl furlIlcr. That ifa railroad shall not be completed to Sioux Cit across Iowa or Minno sotta within 18 ment from the date of this M The 18 months have passed and it has not been done "then said companydesignatedby the President. as aforesaid, may commence.continue and complete the constructionof said branch as contemplated by the provisions of this act." That proviso seems to be inconsistent with the 1st part of the provision which I read, and to provide that if within 18 months no roa should reach Sioux City from the east the company designated by him should go on and construct this branch. There really appears to be a conflict between the 2 provisions. There are twoquestions to be considered in connection with this bill now before us; and they are separate questions. One is, whether the President made a legal designation when he desi ated this company for the construction of this ranch, and whether if he did not make a legal designation it is good policy for Congress now to make that designation or confirm the one that he made, and give the building of this branch to this company, which I will call the Iowa company for the purpose of being under stood. e other question relates entirely to routes; and they are totally distinct. In regard to the investigations had before the Pacific Railroad Committee, I desire to state to the Senate that the bulk of what was said by the advocates of both parties in interest reated directly to routes, and not to this designation, for so far as the designation is concerned, the Senate have it all here in the 2 provisions I have read, and are entirely competent to decide without on discussion; and so were the committee who lad the matter in charge. But upon routes there was a great deal said. Gentlemen connected with Dakota Territory came before the committee and advocated the setting aside the order of the president, as proposed by the bill of the honorable chairman of the committee, so that they could come forward and organize a company, alleging that they had the most direct westwardly route up what is called the Niobrara river, a branch of the Missouri. Much was said in regard to the practicability of constructing a line upon that branch; and I must say here that so far as I am a judge of a mountain conn try and I live in one, and have for years and could construe what was said by the advo cates of the Niobrara route, my conclusion was, and I could not ese ape from it, that there was no practicable or fair route up the N iobrara. It was described by themselves as a river with a very narrow valley in our country we would call it a caiion a dee cut in a very billy country, with precipitous bluffs very Generally; and a country over which now mule trains travel with considerable difficulty; and where wagons travel they are compelled in all cases, as was stated, I believe, before the committee, to take the tops of the ridges, and cannot dgo up the valley of that river; in other wor s the river has no valley connected with it. Then, so far as the Niobrara route is concerned, and so far as it affects the question now before the Senate, my judgment was and is that it cuts no figure in the case, that it is an impracticable sand hill region, not profit able to construct a branch of the Pacific railroad through.