35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

ation he desires. He will remember that many years ago an appropriation was made, and a steamboat captain of much energy, Captain Shreve, was employed to clear out the raft, and so far effected it as to make a passage through the raft for one or more boats to pass through. It was a very narrow passage, whereas the raft is a great island of interlaced logs, with some shrubs and pretty large trees growing upon it. Immediately thereafter, the logs from the sides of the raft joining with those borne down by the next flood, filled up the passage. Some other appropriations were made of such small amounts as really to effect nothing. In 1852, an appropriation was made, I think, of $100,000: my memory is never very accurate about numbers, but I think that was the sum. It devolved on me in another capacity to seek a contractor to remove the raft with that appropriation. Advertisements were issued, and proposals were invited from persons who were said to have studied the subject, and had some peculiar facilities for removing the raft; but I could never get a contractor who, for the amount appropriated, was able to give bond that he could complete the work, and I did not choose to give him a dollar with a knowledge that I should have to come to Congress for more. After various attempts, it was found fruitless to get a contractor; and, on the matter being reported to Congress, the act was changed, and power was then given to the Secretary of War to apply the money in any manner for the improvement of the navigation of Red river through or around the raft.

Upon an examination and report by a gentleman of some reputation as a civil engineer, and who is now in charge of the work, it appeared that instead of attempting to remove the raft, it would be better to clear out a bayou through which there was already a partial navigation, and which ran out of Red river above the raft, and into Red river again below the raft. They commenced the improvement of this bayou, which consisted in removing logs and stumps, and some little dredging where it expanded into a kind of lake. The work is not yet completed; I believe the appropriation is not exhausted. My expectation was, that the money on hand would make the bayou navigable into Red river above the raft; but I had no doubt it would be necessary at a subsequent period to make another appropriation, on account of the extension of the raft, which, constantly extending up the river, would finally pass the head of the bayou. Some provision was made for catching the logs as they came down the river, and transferring them into a sort of basin or natural lake, lying on each side. This would require an annual expenditure. Sometimes there are two floods in the river, and when that is the case, it would require twice in each year an expenditure of money to catch the logs and take them out of the river into some place of safety. I think the navigation may, in the manner I have stated, be made feasible for a large portion of the year for a small class of steamboats.

I would say further, that the Red river, as it runs now, is higher than the country for some distance west of it, and there is a seeming inclination of the river to find its way through bayous, and possibly to cut a new channel. I think it would have been possible, with a very large amount of money, to remove the raft; but it was not possible to do it for the amount which was appropriated, and I do not believe it was possible to remove the raft for an amount which could judiciously have been appropriated for that purpose.

I am a little struck, however, with the exception which is made to this particular improvement. The reason for taking out this particular work from the general class is, that it is not to preserve and keep in repair work already done. It is as much so as the others. You must prevent

the accumulation of the raft and its extension above the bayou, which now constitutes the whole navigation; and it is as much the keeping of the navigation around the raft in repair, as the binding together of the stone piers you have built with new crib-work at the harbors along the lakes. It is additional work in order that you may keep up a navigation which has been created by artificial means. They are all subject to the same objec

tion. It is a mere pretext to say that you are

|

Internal Improvements—Mr. Bigler.

keeping a work in repair when you are in fact renewing the construction.

When the Government has generously gone into the wilderness and made a harbor where nature had made none, and upon that harbor has grown a great city; for that city, with its wealth, to come here annually and ask for appropriations to keep up its piers, seems to me more objectionable than that this region, lying, as it does, in a frontier position, should come here in its poverty, and ask aid to its navigation. Yet that is not a plea which I could make; it is not a reason on which I could ever cast a vote; but if there is any one measure in the whole list which may be excepted from the objection that we are making to the bills as a whole, it is the particular work which it is now proposed to strike out. It runs into the Indian country; the navigation leads to your frontier military posts, kept there as a cover to the frontier settlements, and to control the Indians. If that navigation were open as high as the mouth of the False Washita or Preston, it would greatly diminish the expense of keeping your military forces on the upper waters of the Red river. It might, therefore, be put on the ground of means of access to the frontier for military purposes, and hence it might be made an exception, which you might take out of the bill for the purpose of voting for it separately, when you were going to vote against the bill. But that the friends of the whole class of measures should take this one out on the mere pretext that it is not keeping a work in repair, and endeavor to discriminate against it, surprises me.

Mr. SEWARD. The honorable Senator will allow me to suggest that I think he has misapprehended the friends of the whole class of these measures. No person here has taken that exception. The motion comes from the honorable Senator behind him, [Mr. BIGLER.] No person on this side of the Chamber, I know, has responded to it.

Mr. DAVIS. I will make a single remark; and I shall not continue my observations on the subject. The Senator who sits behind me, and who, I am very glad to say, is my friend, does not happen to be with me on this question. This seems to be a question that upheaves party distinctions. Mr. SEWARD. I do not see that it does. Mr. DAVIS. I scarcely know how to find a Democrat on the question of internal improve

Mr. DAVIS. A certain portion of them seem always to me, somehow or other, to get seduced into the camp of the enemy; and I know how hopeless it is to struggle against a great scheme, in which a variety of local interests are combined, to obtain a large sum of money out of the Treasury. Were my strength greater, my prudence would warn me not to make the attempt.

Mr. GWIN. I have no doubt that this is the most meritorious measure which has been brought before the Senate in connection with river and harbor improvements. The navigation of the Red river for two or three hundred miles above this obstruction is very good, and this raft is the only difficulty in the way of navigation from the mouth of the Red river, certainly up to the mouth of the False Washita, or even perhaps higher. It runs into a section of country where we now have to transport munitions of war at great expense, and in the direction of a region where the Indians are most warlike and commit the most depredations

SENATE.

the sand into the harbor and filling it up, instead of going through False bay, its former mouth, into the ocean. That work was progressed with to a certain point; it was not completed; and what was done there has been of great injury to the harbor, because the works are being washed into the harbor and are filling it up rapidly. If there is any case where it is necessary to appropriate money to preserve work that has been done heretofore, certainly that is one; and when the War Department was called upon to report the works for the preservation of which an appropriation should be made, that was one of those which ought to have been sent in; but, as I said before, that coast is left out entirely in these appropriations. That is the justice accorded to us.

Mr. BIGLER. I had not supposed, Mr. President, that the question of improving rivers and harbors, either making new work or extending work that had been commenced, or repairing or protecting improvements already made, ever had been considered a question of Democracy. I have not so understood it. I could not so understand it, looking at its history long before I came here as a member of this body. I do not recollect ever to have seen a distinct party vote on the subject. It is a question of policy, of expediency, on which statesmen may differ. It may be a question of constitutional power. It may be one of policy for one section of the Union, and not policy for another. It is generally understood to be a part of our commercial policy. I recollect that in the last Congress members of this body who stood high in the Democratic party advocated large appropriations to commence new works and to extend improvements of this character. I have not favored an extension of the system; but I have a settled aversion to sudden, impulsive changes of the policy of the Government.

It is not for me to attempt to inquire at this day whether these improvements were necessary for commerce; whether the policy has been a wise one. I have regarded it as part of our commercial system, which had been adopted and cherished from the foundation of the Government. I am not certain that it ought to be continued; but in deciding to vote in favor of reporting the necessary measures to protect the works which we have, I was controlled mainly by the consideration that it was unwise to change suddenly a policy which the Government had so long embraced. As stated by the Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. ALLEN,] the report of the topographical bureau to the War Department asked appropriations of $3,500,000, to extend and construct new improvements of rivers and harbors. I was not willing, in the pres ent depressed condition of our finances, to report in favor of new works, or the extension of new improvements; but I was willing, and I did vote to report bills for such repairs as seemed to be necessary to protect, for a time at least, the improvements which had been heretofore made.

Now, sir, I differ with my honorable friend from Mississippi in reference to this Red river improvement. I do not believe it falls within that class which the instructions of the Senate contemplated. If I recollect aright, the resolution of the Senate was for repairs. The Senator's own showing is, that this work is never to cease; that, from its very character, the improvement which is constructed one year is to be destroyed the next, and so the work is to be perpetual. Iconsider such a work impracticable. I do not con fine my objection to the idea that it is to comrepairing one. From what I knew of it before I mence new works, or complete a work instead of on our frontier settlements. heard of it here, and from what I heard in comGentlemen speak of this as a sectional question.mittee, I came to the conclusion that it was an Why, sir, there never was a more partial set of impracticable scheme, did not fall within the inmeasures than these bills. In the whole series structions of the Senate, was not an appropriathere is not a single dime proposed to be appro- tion for repairs, but to prosecute a hopeless enter priated for the Pacific coast, where we have two prise which would be continued year tire bil, if I shall be very slow to vote for the entire am requested to include this Red river appropriation. I think I stated in committee, that I would hold my opinion in reserve on that point; I do so now. My judgment is clear that this $110,000 will be thrown away if it be appropriated. I move to strike it out, as I intend to move to strike out pressingly necessary, with a view of voting for the bill. shall not trouble the Senate further.

thousand miles of sea-coast and interior rivers that need improvement. It is said these measures are for the repair of works already commenced by the Government. Well, sir, five or six years ago an appropriation of $30,000 was made for the purpose of preserving the harbor of San Diego, one of the most beautiful harbors within the boundaries of the United States. It was being destroyed by the San Diego river having broken through an obstruction which formerly existed, and washing

Mr. DAVIS. The Senator from Pennsylvania puts me in the attitude of a prophet, which I am not willing to occupy. I did not say the work on this improvement would never cease; but that I did not know when it would. It certainly will cease, whenever the logs shall be prevented from coming down, at a remote day.

Mr. BIGLER. I did not intend to make my language too strong, so as to misrepresent the honorable Senator, nor to dignify him with the position of a prophet; but I thought the case so strong that, in measuring matters of finance, I might say the expenditure would never cease. I have had some experience myself in this kind of improvement.

Mr. DAVIS. Will the Senator allow me to ask him when the logs that make the crib-work and form the piers of the lake harbors are going to quit rotting? That is what your appropriations are for now; the logs have decayed and you want to put in new ones.

Mr. BIGLER. That is a question which can be answered, and it will be answered, in reference to each specific item. If you had live oak below the water, I should say it never would rot. Mr. DAVIS. But at the surface, between wind and water?

Mr. BIGLER. That depends on the character of the timber, and when it is cut. Some of it will last ten years and another kind of timber will not last two.

Mr. DAVIS. I want the Senator to inform the Senate how one work is interminable and the other is terminable? and when he gets through the decaying timber and makes it perennial, then I should like to know when the sands that constitute the deposits now floating against those piers and forming bars at the end of the piers, such as existed before the piers were built, are to cease their eternal roll down the lake? and beyond that, as I do not wish to trouble the Senator again, I would ask him when he expects to get through with those questions which involve the interference of the General Government with the State Sovereignty, and which have arisen constantly on the claims of riparian proprietors at every one of those works along Lake Erie ?

Mr. BIGLER. It is very easy to distinguish between the character of the works to which I referred, and this Red river improvement. I had reference to superstructure, to piers which will last, under ordinary circumstances, ten, twelve, fifteen, or twenty years; but they will require slight repairs. Now, the distinction which I make

this: the Red river is found, in its natural condition, entirely impassable to steam navigation. You may repair it one season, and the next season you find it in its natural condition, from natural causes. That is what I mean by a work never to be completed.

Mr. PUGH. I should like to ask the Senator from Pennsylvania a question, with his consent. I understand him to acknowledge the constitutionality of these appropriations for the regulation and protection of commerce between the States. Does he think the duty of Congress is exhausted in one year or in two years?

Mr. BIGLER. Certainly not.

Mr. PUGH. What objection is it, then, that an improvement has to be renewed and continued? The duty of Congress continues.

Mr. BIGLER. I made no allusion to any constitutional question. The honorable Senator from Ohio misunderstood me. In that connection, I

spoke of it as a question of expediency, of utility. However constitutional it may be, is there any wisdom in prosecuting a work that does not answer the purpose intended?

Mr. GWIN. I differ entirely with the Senator from Pennsylvania, and the Senator from Mississippi, about the practicability of making the Red river navigable around the falls; for the obstruction of the raft is not only on account of the deposit of timber, but the obstruction is not greater than the falls of the Ohio.

Mr. DAVIS. My friend from California has misapprehended me. I said, or intended to say, that not being able to execute the task of removing the raft, with the money appropriated, the work was undertaken to clear out the bayou near the raft, so as to come out of the main channel of the Red river above the raft, and enter into it be

low the raft, which would require an expenditure of money to prevent the raft extending itself up the Red river, until it closed the mouth of the bayou.

Mr. GWIN. I have been in that country, and when I was in Congress before, I always looked upon it as an exception; and I always thought that if there was anything really national in improving rivers and harbors, it was the removal of that raft. It was most important at that time, for a large portion of the country beyond it then, did not belong to the United States. Texas was a foreign country, and we had to have military posts on the frontier there, and transport military supplies to the Indian country. This work was then on the western borders of the Republic, and it was looked upon as a national work. I have not a solitary doubt, but that in time it may require a large sum of money, but not anything approaching what we appropriate here to keep our Navy and our Army in marching order for the purpose of preserving peace on the frontier and with foreign nations, in any one year, to make a perfect system of navigation through the raft or around the raft. I think it is one of the most meritorious works. It was commenced many years ago, and if it had been prosecuted with vigor, steamboats would now be running there, as they do around the falls of the Ohio, and the work is as necessary to that section of the country and as useful to the whole Union as any other for which you appropriate money.

The country above the raft is one of the finest in the United States, extending for hundreds of miles. It will soon be densely populated, and would be now but for the Indian territory north of the Red river. It is a splendid country. I traveled over it many years ago, and I know what it is. One of the difficulties in new portions of the country is, that you will not give us any appropriations to clear out our rivers and harbors, because we have not had a survey; and then you will not give us an appropriation for a survey, so that we are never to have any. There is an obstruction in the Sacramento river, in my own State, over which millions of commerce pass, that is every year becoming more and more a hinderance to navigation simply for the want of a dredging machine. Thirty millions of gold pass down that river for the purpose of benefiting this section of the country, and we cannot get an appropriation for its improvement, because we have not had a survey. I intend, at the proper time, to offer a resolution in this language:

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation to complete the works already commenced for the improvement of the harbor of San Diego; and, also, to survey the rivers and harbors of the State of California.

So,

Ho. OF REPS.

morning, instead of coming half exhausted, having our official business to transact and our correspondence to maintain after we return from the Senate and get some refreshment. I am not in the habit of taking a lunch here; I wish that understood. I think we might get along as well by adjourning now. This is said to be a measure of peculiar and of great advantage to a lovely section of country, most desirable for occupation, with every fine prospect possible for the completion of the work at an early day, and a wise investment of the sum proposed to be appropriated, $110,000. Let me read an extract from the intelligent report of the Secretary of War:

"The prosecution of this improvement has been attended with numerous embarrassments of a character to retard its progress, and greatly to enhance its cost. Among the impediments in the way of its advancement, the insalubrity of the raft district, the difficulty of procuring and retaining laborers, the scarcity and consequent high prices of provis

ions and labor, and the sickness and frequent desertions of the employés, are the most considerable. Efficient laborers, white or black, could not be obtained at a cost less than thirty dollars per month for each hand, besides their board, and, in most cases, their conveyance from remote points.

"The progress of this work, from the beginning of the last fiscal year to the 1st of September, 1356, has been set forth, in details sufficiently copious, in my annual report of that date, and in the documents appended thereto. The operations subsequently performed are sufficiently explained in the annual report of agent Fuller, hereto appended." (See Appendix, Doc. No. 8.)

We have not had an opportunity of examining these documents; but they are doubtless very important, and would shed a great deal of light on this subject.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Will the Senator give way for a motion to adjourn?

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. SEWARD called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Although I made the motion, I shall not vote for it, because I have paired off with the Senator from Maine, Mr. FESSENDEN.

Mr. BROWN. I have paired off with the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. SHIELDS.

Mr. FOOT. I have paired off with the Senator from Florida, Mr. MALLORY.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 23, nays 18; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bigler, Bright, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Hayne, Houston, Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, Kennedy, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Reid, Rice, Slidell, Thompson of Kentucky, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, and Wright-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Chandler, Collamer, Durkee, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, Simmons, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-18. So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

APPROPRIATIONS FOR LAKE HARBORS.

OF NEW YORK,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Mr. SEWARD called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and, being taken, resulted -yeas 22, nays 27; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bright, Brown, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Hayne, Houston, Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Reid, Shields, Slidell, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Wright,

and Yulee-22.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bell, Bigler, Broderick, Chandler, Dixon, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Hunter, Jones, King, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Seward, Simmons, Stuart, Thomson of New Jersey, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-27.

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. HOUSTON. It is unusually late, and I really can see no particular urgency for the passage of this measure now. I think we should expedite business as much by adjourning at the usual hour, and coming here refreshed in the

May 31, 1858.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. GOODWIN said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The commerce of the northwestern lakes-those great inland seas-both from its national importance, the vast amount of capital invested, and the number of vessels and men employed, has come to be one of the important and leading interests of the country: as such it justly demands the care and attention of the Government. The Committee on Commerce both of the House and Senate have reported several bills making appropriations for the preservation of various harbors on these lakes; absolutely necessary for the protection of this extensive commerce, and without which the Government works at those points will be almost entirely destroyed, and the trade and business of a large section of the country seriously injured. I ask the attention of the House while with as few words as possible, I submit some plain facts and suggestions for its consideration in relation to this subject. Here allow me to remark that the principle and policy involved in these appropriations in behalf of our internal

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

commerce have been sanctioned by the action of nearly every Administration down to the present time; they received the practical approval of the administrations of Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson. The question now presented, is not, whether the Government will originate these works and continue these improvements, but simply whether the Government will, after expending millions in establishing these improvements, allow them to be destroyed and its money lost, for the want of small appropriations to save them from destruction? Whether this trade and commerce shall be in a great measure paralyzed, or enabled to contribute to the revenues and the wealth and prosperity of the country?

ITS EXTENT AND IMPORTANCE.

From the report made by the Committee on Commerce in the Thirty-Fourth Congress, and from other sources of information, I find that the value of the commerce of these lakes in 1855 was

more than six hundred and thirty million dollars; I also have the figures to show that the lake tonnage constitutes one fifteenth of the entire tonnage of the United States; and for the last few years the ratio of its increase has been more than double that of our ocean tonnage. I also find that the clearances of vessels from ports in the United States to Canada and entries from ports in Canada to ports in the United States for the year 1855, were greater in amount of tonnage than between the United States and any other foreign country. The value of our trade with Canada, carried on mainly over these lakes, is greater than with any other

foreign country, excepting England and France; and this trade is rapidly increasing. The coast line of these lakes on the American side is eighteen hundred and sixty miles, and they have an average breadth of about forty seven miles. This lake shipping has also access to Lake Superior, opening new and rich avenues of trade and commerce which will rapidly increase in value and extent.

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES.

In the discussion a few days ago in relation to the extravagant expenditures of the Government, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. LETCHER] seemed to include in that term those bills making appropriations for lake harbors, and for river navigation. Now, sir, I will briefly refer to this point. From 1837 to 1855, inclusive, the revenue derived from duties on imports at the various ports on the great lakes amount to $5,713,129 98. The total amount appropriated by the Government for the improvement of the navigation of these lakes, from the beginning to 1855, inclusive, is $2,884,125, less than has been appropriated for a custom-house at New Orleans; surplus revenue received by the United States, $2,829,004 98.

The following table will show the amounts of duties collected at the different points on the lakes from 1837 to 1855:

It will be found, by examination, that the Government has realized from this commerce a handsome income over and above all expenditures and expenses.

But, sir, I do not ask for these appropriations because of the profits this commerce has yielded to the Treasury of the nation. I place it on a broader ground. Our domestic commerce is as much entitled to the care and protection of the Government as our foreign commerce. The preservation of these harbors is essential to this commerce; necessary for the safety of the property and lives of the people engaged in it. The fact cannot be denied that these harbors have saved the country the amount the Government has expended on them over and over again. In principle, the commerce of the lakes is a national commerce, as well as our ocean commerce. Seven of our States, containing about half of the popula

tion of the country, are bounded, in part, on the great lakes. By rivers, canals, and railroads, this commerce is extended to, and connected with, the tide waters of the Atlantic and the Mississippi river, threading with links of intercommunication many States, and adding to the wealth and prosperity of the whole country.

CONDITION OF THE LAKE HARBORS.

The annual report of Colonel J. D. Graham, the officer in charge of the lake harbor works, made September 30, 1857, and published by the order of this House, sets forth the condition of these harbors and earnestly recommends immediate appropriations to save them from destruction. I would call the attention of members to this valuable official report, containing as it does, a great amount of information on this whole subject. It will be found that the harbor works are in a ruinous and dilapidated state, the improvements heretofore commenced by the Government, and partially completed, are being rapidly destroyed, and without some aid the millions of money already expended by the Government on the lake harbor improvements, necessary for the preservation of life and property, must become a total loss. Your present Committee on Commerce, in the report on this subject, says:

"In many instances the fruits of repeated appropriations are now perishing for want of proper attention; and in all, the works may be not only saved at their present state of completion, by timely appropriations, but preserved for future improvement."

Mr. Chairman, in this connection I wish to re

fer to the situation of Oswego harbor, New York: the most important one on Lake Ontario, and necessary for the protection of the commerce of the lakes; it will afford an illustration of the condition of the lake harbors generally. The following is an extract from Colonel Graham's report: "OSWEGO HARBOR, NEW YORK.-The works for the protection of this harbor are in a very precarious condition. "They were constructed at a period when, it would seem, there could not have been a just appreciation of the force of the lake sea which they were intended to resist.

"During the present season a portion of the work has crumbled, which was built only four years ago, at the exmined at four different places, and the stone washed out by tremity of the west pier. The crib work has been underthe force of the sea. One of these breaches is within one hundred and fifty feet of the light-house. We have endeavored to make temporary repairs at these places, in the best manner practicable, with the very small means at our command; and, indeed, while writing this report, our attention has been frequently abstracted from it under the necessity of endeavoring to save important parts of the work from more serious injury. We have not, however, the means to do it in the permanent manner required to make it last.

I consider the light-house to be in danger from the storms which must occur between the present season and the ensuing spring.

"The inner harbor, designed to be protected by the works, is also in imminent danger of being seriously injured, if not altogether ruined, unless immediate appropriations be granted for the most urgent repairs required.

"For these repairs I herewith submit an estimate, marked $ 1, amounting to $46,391 44.

"I would earnestly recommend that this sum be granted with as little delay as possible, and in a single appropriation, because it is very important that the requisite materials be collected, and certain portions of the work be done the ensuing winter. The whole work of repairs should be in full vigor on the opening of spring.

"The harbor of Oswego, whether considered in a commercial or military point of view, is undoubtedly the most important on Lake Ontario.

"By canals and railroads it has a direct commercial connection not only with Syracuse, Albany, and the city of New York, but also with Philadelphia, to which it is the nearest port on the great lakes. The value of its internal and coastwise trade is not less than sixty million dollars

HO. OF REPS.

ter from Captain Malcolm, United States custodian at that point: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS, OSWEGO, April 14, 1858. SIR: I would most respectfully call your earnest attention to the deplorable state of the Government pier at this place, and to the absolute necessity for an early appropriation by Congress for its repair.

For several years past the stone work has been rapidly crumbling away, and during the past winter two hundred cords of stone filling have escaped from the undermining of the old crib work, built some twenty-five years since.

Indeed the whole pier is in a most dilapidated condition. The counter ports or small piers inside, which strengthen, and are the backbone to it, are fast washing away.

The oak plank sheathing which faces the pier at the lighthouse, with a portion of the crib timber, is cut away some forty feet, by the action of the waves.

If no appropriation is made this year, another year will find us without light-house or pier.

The loss will not end here, for the remains of the work will be carried into the channel, entirely closing its entrance to the inner harbor, for which the work was designed to

protect.

In conclusion, I would most respectfully refer you to the admirable report of Colonel Graham, for 1857, which places this subject in its true light.

I am very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM SCHUYLER MALCOLM,
United States Custodian.

Hon. H. C. GOODWIN, Washington.
Again, under date of May 13, 1858, he says,
in a letter urging action on this subject:

"There is not a harbor on the American side of Lake Ontario where the piers are not washing away, and filling up the channels to them. As there is nothing now in the pier (at Oswego) to keep it in its place, the first severe gale will completely demolish the whole work, and, of course, destroy the commerce of this port.”

[Mr. LETCHER,] in his remarks made several days since, in opposition to the proposed appropriations for completing custom-houses at various points, referred to Oswego as a port where the collection of the revenue cost the Government more than it received, and condemned the expenditure for a custom-house at that point. I replied to the gentleman at the time. Now, I have, from the Treasury Department, the figures to show how the matter stands between Oswego and the Government. The duties collected at the port of Oswego, from June, 1848, to Ju re, 1856, amount lo $1,209,113 84. The amount of appropriations for this harbor, from the beginning, is but $271,086. After deducting the cost of the custom-house, and the cost of collecting the duties at this point, it will be found that the port of Oswego has paid to the Government, for the eight years prior to 1856, an average net income of at least one hundred thousand dollars per year.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia,

Now, sir, it is true, that since the adoption of the "reciprocity treaty" the revenue at this point has fallen off, for certain property is allowed to be imported duty free; but while the duties collected are less, the importations and trade have greatly increased. The imports have to be entered at the custom-house so that the officers may decide what are free from, and what are to be charged with duties. The duties paid at this port for the last calender year before the treaty went into ef fect, amounted to more than two hundred and ninety thousand dollars. Some of this amount was afterwards refunded under the operation of that treaty; but had the old rate of duties been paid on the imports at this point in 1856, I am told they would have amounted to near half a million dollars. Allow me to call attention for a moment to a few facts illustrating the importance of

it.

"Fort Ontario is situated on the east side of this harbor, about twelve hundred feet from the light house. It overlooks and completely commands the harbor entrance.

"It is an important work in the chain of defenses requisite in times of war for our northern frontier, but its importance would be greatly diminished if the harbor were to become deteriorated for want of the requisite protecting works."

This report was made in September, 1857; since that time these works have sustained serious injuries, as will appear by the following let

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

protected by Fort Ontario, would be of the utmost importance to our vessels engaged in this commerce, and would also be essential for the safety of Government vessels and stores, and although a war may be utterly improbable, yet all experience and recent occurrences show the propriety of not allowing the usefulness and efficiency of such defenses to be destroyed for the want of attention on the part of the Government.

Personal Explanation-Mr. Smith.

lected by those of the committee who were present that to-day I forbore, as much as was in my power, to make any reference to one of the members from Illinois-the member who last spoke, [Mr. MORRIS.] I avoided it simply from an indisposition to introduce him into this discussion, beyond what was indispensable. Nevertheless, he came into it with matter obviously prepared, and with a view, if possible, to make an issue with me on a question of fact. And, sir, never was I more astonished than when he introduced the affidavit of an old soldier, of impaired hearing, and who can hardly have heard or understood an entire sentence of the conversation, and

Mr. Chairman, there is another point to which I will briefly refer, showing the importance of these appropriations for the lake harbors, and that is the fearful loss of life and property that occurs on these lakes from the want of proper protection in the shape of harbors. For a period of "Whose trembling limbs have borne him to your door," eight years the value of property lost on the lakes with a view to secure him a pension, not from and damage sustained, was more than five million eight hundred and twenty-eight thousand three the justice, but from the sympathies of Congress. I was astonished that the member should have hundred and forty-six dollars; number of vessels lost in that time one thousand two hundred and sent home and got the affidavit of this old man as to a question of fact between the member and thirty-one; of those, five hundred and sixty-six were stranded. The total loss of property on the myself, who were conversing upon an interesting lakes in 1857, was more than one million three hun-subject, naturally calculated, from its character, dred and eighty-seven thousand nine hundred and to arouse our fiveliest attention. It is a deep thirty-five dollars. Total loss of life in 1857, was wrong, Mr. Chairman, which the member has four hundred and ninety; in 1856, four hundred perpetrated on that old man, and I now propose to show it. I will read here what the member and seven. Those most intimately acquainted himself did say on a former occasion in this conwith the commerce of the lakes unite in saying, that much of this loss, both as respects life and property, is owing to the want of harbor accommodations and protection. This applies particularly to the loss sustained by the stranding of vessels. Why, sir, the value of the property exposed to the perils of lake navigation is about equal to the total value of all the merchandise exported from the United States to foreign countries added to the value of all that is imported into our country. Some years it exceeds in value the sum total of our exports and imports, and in other years it falls but little short.

Mr. Chairman, we are near the close of the session. These bills have been for a long time before the House and Senate. We have just appropriated a million dollars to continue the works for bringing water to the city of Washington. We shall appropriate near a million dollars to continue the works on the Capitol extension. Now, after all this, is it right for Congress to refuse or neglect to make these small appropriations for the protection of these vast interests, for the safety of life and property, for the improvement of these grand highways of trade and commerce? Sir, let not the Government turn aside from these duties that lie directly in its pathway, but mete out to the commerce of the great lakes-a national interest-the same measure or justice that it has not been withheld from our interests on the sea-board.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM SMITH,
OF VIRGINIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
May 31, 1858.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union-

Mr. SMITH said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I have been here for twelve

hours, under quite feeble health; for until to-day I have not felt tolerably well for ten days; but a purely personal matter was thrown into the discussion in which I participated to-day, of new matter out and out; and I was denied the comity, which is rarely refused, of responding to that matter at the time. I owe nothing to the gentlemen who objected. At this late period of the session, it was obviously a matter of great interest to me that the remarks which I might deem proper to submit on that question should go out with the main debate; and yet they denied me the floor. The gentleman, also, who has just addressed the committee, [Mr. LEITER,] has certainly entitled himself to some reply from me. I must confess that the line of his remarks has provoked no little indignation; for I consider it politically unjust, and politically very abusive, in its charac

ter.

Mr. Chairman, of course I am obliged to be very brief, it being past ten, p. m. It will be recolNEW SERIES.-No. 31.

nection. It will be recollected, sir, that I charged that a certain conversation had taken place. Now, here is what the member said:

"If I ever had a conversation with the gentleman from Virginia, (and I recollect having one,) it was some time in December last, in my private room at the United States Hotel, in the presence of my family. I invited the gentleman to my room for the purpose, as I think the gentleman will bear me witness, mainly of introducing him to an old friend who formerly lived in Virginia, and who had come on here for the purpose of obtaining a pension, and I was desirous of enlisting the members of the House in his favor. The conversation to which the gentleman alludes came up incidentally. I entered into it with him with a view of ascertaining if this Kansas question could not be settled without any serious division in the Democratic party. In that conversation much was said. I remember remarking to the gentleman from Virginia that he ought to recollect that in Illinois we were differently situated from himself; that we had a different constituency; that the Democracy of Illinois had, before the meeting of Congress, with scarcely an exception, taken their position in opposition to the Lecompton constitution, and that neither DOUGLAS nor any other man could be returned from that State to the United States Senate if he favored an instrument of that character. I recollect stating to him that southern gentlemen ought to have some charity and feeling for our position."

That is what the gentleman himself admitted to have been the character of the conversation, and yet he introduces to this House this poor old man's affidavit, backed up with a certificate signed by a number of persons, which was gotten up for another purpose in the year 1855, as to his reliability and trustworthiness; and he makes this poor old man say as follows:

"Affiant further states that said SMITH came to said room about half past seven o'clock, p. m., of said day, and remained there from one half to three quarters of an hour. That the only persons present were the said SMITH, MORRIS and his wife, and affiant; and affiant now most positively states that no such statement as said SMITH has attributed to said MORRIS, in a speech recently delivered by him (SMITH) in the House of Representatives, in substance, that the Illinois delegation in Congress had had a conference, and determined or agreed that the only way for Judge DOUGLAS to secure his reelection to the United States Senate was by opposing the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution,' were made by said MORRIS at the time, nor was anything said by said MORRIS which could be so construed as to bear such meaning."

any

fix attention upon the statement of the member It is only necessary for me, Mr. Chairman, to himself, which I have just read, and to contrast it with the affidavit of this old man. The truth is, it raises an issue of fact with himself, and disproves, if anything, his own statement, which I have read. But that is not all. I did not advert to the statement of the gentleman [Mr. BURNETT] who spoke on this subject on a former occasion; said. He said: but I will now read sundry extracts from what he

"The gentleman from Virginia, some time ago, in a conversation between us, when we were discussing the action of the Democratic party upon the Kansas question, or of those of the Democratic party who differed with us, and the reasons for their course, said to me, substantially, what he has stated here. I remarked to him then that I had bad substantially, the same language to me.” a conversation with Mr. MORRIS, in which he repeated,

Again:

"The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MORRIS] approached me this morning, and said that he understood that I had stated that I had had, substantially, the same conversation

Ho. OF REPS.

with him which the gentleman from Virginia repeated yesterday."

Again:

"Now, sir, as to the facts. The time I cannot fix. Some time early in the session, I, in company with another gentleman, who is a member of this House, met the gentleman from Hlinois on the street. I introduced him to the gentleman, and some conversation passed between us of a light and trivial character, I do not now recollect what. He then asked me to call at his room, saying that he desired to talk with me. I was then on my way, I think, to the War Department. I did call at his room on my return, and a long conversation took place between us. I cannot pretend to give the whole of that conversation, nor will I undertake to give the language used, because every gentleman, whether he be a lawyer or not, knows how impossible it is to give the details of such conversations, or the precise language used by any individual. I do not desire to do the gentleman from Illinois any injustice. The conversation was commenced by him. I did not know what his purpose was. He commenced by speaking of the position which had been taken by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, and by his colleagues in this House upon the Kansas question. ́I understood him distinctly to say, that upon a conference of the friends of Judge DOUGLAS-the friends from Illinois-it had been agreed that he should take the course which he has pursued in reference to the Kansas question as the only means by which he could sustain himself at home; that unless he did take that course he would not only inevitably suffer defeat at home himself, but his friends would fall with him.

"During this conversation, which, as I have said, was one of some length, and which was held with me as a friend of Judge DOUGLAS, something was said about some arrangement by which the Democratic party could act together, and stand a unit upon this question. We talked a good deal upon that subject. During the conversation there was a statement made, that one reason why Judge DOUGLAS felt himself aggrieved, and why he had pursued this course, was, that there had been an attempt upon the part of the present Administration to destroy him, to crush him, to break him down; that his friends had been neglected in appointments, and the claims of Illinois overlooked; and that Judge DOUGLAS did not inthe present Administration."

tend to be crushed

In my speech of the 26th March, with such statements from honorable gentlemen, the extraordinary course of Judge DOUGLAS and his colleagues in this House, and other evidence of a highly significant character, which I did not feel at liberty to use, I think I was fully justified in saying in reference to Judge DOUGLAS:

"I fear ambition has done its work. I fear imaginary private griefs have been actively at work. I have heard of a meeting of the Illinois delegation to consider of the policy to be pursued."

And, sir, the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. MARSHALL, in his first speech, breathed forth the general dissatisfaction of Judge DOUGLAS and his friends, as the following extract will show. Speaking of Illinois, the gentleman says:

"From the moment she became a sovereign State to the present time, she has never failed in her adherence to the national Democracy. With men of acknowledged talents and statesmanship in her midst, not one of her sons has ever, at any time, received a first class appointment from the Federal Government. Her claims in this respect have been dis regarded. Notwithstanding all this, we have adhered to our faith and battled for the right without a murmur."

Mr. Chairman, I will add, in this connection, that there are other gentlemen to whom I might have referred, the gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. DAVIDSON,] and another gentleman from Kentucky, both of whom had similar conversations, in effect, with the member from Illinois [Mr. MORRIS.] And yet, sir, after that admission, after my statement, after the evidence to which I have referred, the member brings in this affidavit to raise a question of veracity with me! Sir, I consign him to that destiny which he deserves and which will be accorded to him by the judgment of the House as well as by the country at large.

Having said thus much, sir, allow me to turn in another direction. I am surprised, beyond degree surprised, that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LEITER] Should have indulged in the speech with which he entertained us to-night. He has sat here in comparative silence during the whole winter; he has heard, for five months, this discussion go on; he has waited until this late hour of the session, and this late hour of the night, to make a violent attack upon the Democratic party in general, and upon his colleagues from Ohio in particular, when he knows that there is a great chance that they cannot possibly have any opportunity of replying to him. I submit, sir, that it was not treating the question, or his colleagues, or the Democratic party, fairly. But that I happen to have the floor at this late hour of the night I should have had no opportunity to advert to it, and now, having the floor, I beg leave to indulge in a few remarks.

The gentleman commences remarkably, very remarkably indeed, by charging that there are

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

traitors in the Democratic party in the North. Well, the gentleman is competent to judge, for he has had experience upon that subject.

Mr. LEITER. Yes, I have seen them. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Yes, sir, he has seen them, and been of them. I understand that up to 1854, you were of the Democratic party yourself, and now you charge treason upon that party which brought you into distinction, and gave you honor and fame.

Mr. LEITER. I wish to say that I have in my possession means to prove that I stand upon the same platform now that I did before.

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Oh, certainly-exactly. No man ever changes, but a great party swings around to enable the gentleman to preserve his consistency! Shame on him! I would not so add insult to injury as to affect to be unchangeable. Who sent the gentleman here? Did the Democratic party?

Mr. LEITER. A part of it. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Ay, a very small part, I will be bound. A hundred, perhaps, gentlemen, who had a little fellow-feeling for his old Democracy, whom he took into corners, perhaps in some retired place. Sir, he was sent here by the Black Republican party, and he insults them by getting up here now and claiming still to be a Democrat. By the gods! I have never seen such cool and deliberate assurance. Yes, sir, he played false to the Democratic party in 1854, and, as he acknowledges, practiced treason against those whom he now denounces. Nor is that all; he insults the very party to whom he owes his present greatness by scorning it and telling us that he still cleaves to the Democracy and is still a Democrat.

Mr. LEITER. I do not claim to belong to that Democratic party. I claim that essentially, and to all intents and purposes, the Republican party is standing upon Democratic principles.

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Exactly! Lord! "how we apples swim." Why, sir, that is the game such changelings ever play, as is shown in the history of parties in this Republic of ours for seventy-five years; the opposition to the Democracy have all along been trying to get our name. They have nicknamed us almost every other day; yet, under the influence of sound principles, and those ennobling sympathies which bind us to our kind, we have made even their nicknames popular. The gentleman undertook to prove us knaves. Sir, he proves himself and his party fools in doing it.

Mr. LEITER. I wish to say that I attempted no such thing. I talked about the northern Democracy.

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. He charges the Democratic party with hypocrisy. He used the term hypocrisy more than once deliberately. He charges us with playing the country false; with falsifying our pledges. He arraigns Mr. Buchanan, the head of the Democratic party, as a criminal. In charging us thus, he undertakes to prove us knaves; and what does he prove, if anything? That the people of the country are fools; that his party, with his best efforts, claiming the right, had not the sense to make the right appear before the country; that we-we, the groundlings, the unwashed, the uncombed, the unterrified, as the enemy sometimes maliciously call us-had the intellect and the brightness, in spite of all the efforts of the Opposition, to honeyfuggle and obfusticate the great mass of our intelligent countrymen in whose hands repose the greatest sovereignty, it may be, under the sun!

Now, sir, it is a matter of astonishment-positively a matter of amazement—that the gentleman should so far forget himself as to stand boldly before the country in the attitude of acknowledging that having the right on their side, he and his party had not the smartness to make the people understand it. He reflects upon himself and his party by showing what weak vessels they are, or, at ally rate, that they are of very inferior capacity, or else that the people are as dull as the ground

on which he treads, and are incapable of appreciating the truth.

Mr. LEITER. I will say to the gentleman that the canvass before the people upon the issue as now made up has not yet taken place. We will try it next fall. Wait till then.

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Yes, sir; the gen- your Speaker, and you got the committees, and tleman is now playing the part of Mr. SEWARD you, in effect, undertook to upset the Government. and others, in the grand canvass of 1856, who The people took away your power of mischief. A gave us the very number of hours that we, the reaction ensued, and we came here in power. UnDemocratic party, had to live. After the passage happily there were differences of opinion in regard of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Mr. SEWARD told to Kansas affairs, in regard to the obligations the country, in that dogmatical and prophetic growing out of the Cincinnati platform, and in revein in which he sometimes indulges, the exact gard to certain proceedings in Kansas. That is number of hours that it was our destiny to linger all true; but let me tell the gentleman that the in this vale of tears; and the gentleman humbly doctrine of popular sovereignty is a doctrine which follows his illustrious predecessor. Sir, I thank recognizes the power of the people to govern ac God that there is intelligence enough in the peo-cording to law, not according to mobs or incenple to unmask the hypocrite. I thank God that diary assemblies. That is the great, the fundathere is intelligence enough in the people to detect mental principle which regulates our Government the wolf in sheep's clothing; and that, when trai- in all its forms. The people establish what Govtors stalk abroad, there is power enough in the ernment they choose. Squatter sovereignty is the great masses of the people to detect them, and right of a few to go into the Territories and exerhang them as high as Haman. cise in their infancy the powers and privileges of full-grown maturity.

The gentleman talks about a time-honored compromise, and the repeal of the Missouri restriction. He says that" the great first sin" was perpetrated in 1854, and that the whole nation sent up one howl of indignant anguish. Sir, what was that question? What was it? The gentleman was a Democrat up to 1854, and concurred in the universal reprobation of that Missouri restriction. It was almost universally conceded to be a wrong. But what did its repeal do?

Mr. LEITER. I wish to ask the gentleman if he did not indorse it in 1845?

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. No, sir; no.
Mr. LEITER. Nor in 1849?
Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. LEITER. Not in the annexation of
Texas?

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Oh, my dear sir,
you know how all that question is. It is not
worth while to go into it now. I am ready to
meet the gentleman upon that; but I want to deal
now with the popular aspect of the question.
What did the Missouri compromise do? Who
did it wrong? who? The Missouri compromise,
which the gentleman now whines over, did un-
dertake, to be sure, to interdict the right of pop-
ular sovereignty, and to say that persons owning
slaves should not go on one side of a given line.
What did its repeal do? It simply said that all
free white persons should have the power of do-
ing their own will; that they should establish
their own government; and that there should be
no geographical distinctions. And who is there,
having proper sympathy in his heart and an ele-
ment of moral justice in his bosom, will object to
every white citizen in America being entitled to
the same rights and privileges? Who can object
to it? The gentleman from Ohio does. It is the
misfortune of those going over from the Demo-
cratic party never again to see a ray of that glori-
ous light which is destined to illumine the world,
and conduct it on in its glorious career.
Well, the Democracy repealed that line, and
the gentleman says a struggle ensued. So it did;
and the Democratic party were floored, in 1855,
by the howls of fanaticism of that party with
which the gentleman is so proud to act. They
floored us for a time; but Democracy, though
floored-true to its exultant and buoyant nature-
springs with elastic bound to its feet again, knocks
all kinds of isms into pi, and promptly recovers
its beneficent ascendency. The intelligent people
were aroused, spoke the voice of command, and
elected our present Chief Magistrate.

But that is not all. The Black Republicans came into this Hall with a majority. What was the result? It undertook to revolutionize the Govern

ment.

Mr. LEITER. Does the gentleman mean to say that we had a Republican majority?

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. You had, until your atrocities lost it to you. You came here with a heavy majority; but your conduct was so damnable that some of your own men left you with disgust. You came with a majority full of all the hope that is borne upon the vision of a glorious triumph, and full of unction and delight; but a nipping frost came, as was the case in 1841,

Mr. LEITER. Who is the father of that doctrine?

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. He was no conservative man. The Territories possess no power except that which the Federal Government itself possesses. It is qualified in character, and limited in extent; but it recognizes the will of the people when exercised in conformity to law, and in no other case.

I claim that the Cincinnati platform has been respected by the Democratic party, and by the chief head of that party. What have they done? What frauds have they perpetrated? They submitted to the people of Kansas the propriety of calling a convention; and the people, by a vote which cannot be impeached, determined that they would have a convention. That convention was accordingly called. Delegates were elected, and they met in convention to perform their duties. What were those duties? To frame a constitution and submit it or not to the people. Mind you, the people were acting through their representa tives. Do not we represent the people? Are not our acts binding upon the people? Do not the people speak when we speak? Facit per alium, facit

per se.

Those delegates assembled, and they had the right to form a constitution; and, in the absence of all legal requirements to the contrary-and it is not pretended that there were any-to adopt a constitution in toto or in part, and to submit it in toto or in part.

Mr. LEITER. Did not Governor Walker de sire them to submit it under the instructions of the President?

up to the

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. No, sir; Walker, in my opinion, was a meddling man, out in Kansas, and did a great deal of mischief. The President's instructions to Walker, as the gentleman has shown, were to protect and sustain the legal voters and to resist and punish illegal ones. So say And that was what he ought to have done; and having done that, he would have acted limit of his power and authority. But he did not stop there. He had ulterior views. He made himself active in shooting from his sphere, and disturbing the repose of that Territory. I take the ground, then, which the President took in his instructions. How have they been disregarded? What voter was withheld from the polls who did not choose to stay away? The election came round, but did the revolutionists stop there? No, they meant to have nothing to do with the organ ization of the government under the constitution. Who voted, then? Was not the proclamation to all to come in and vote? and who have the right, in questions of this sort, but those who speak through the ballot-boxes?

Gentlemen talk about the election of a free-State Legislature and Governor, Is it not remarkable, if it be true as charged, that there was a disposi tion to commit frauds, that they were not cheated out of the returns on those officers. But the January election comes on, and ten thousand good instead of the insignificant number of two thou voters, says the gentleman, spoke their voice, sand five hundred, who voted in October. I would they were good voters. Where there is no think like to know how the gentleman finds out that and a disposition to make a grand show, I think, it likely that almost everybody went to the polls, Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Yes; but you gotdence which marks the character of that vote. and no questions were asked. But there is evi

and has been the case on various occasions.

Mr. LEITER. Is it not the fact that the highest number of votes we were ever able to give for our Speaker was one hundred and three out of two hundred and thirty-four members?