Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1821-01-09

! and prospective condition Of that par
of Ohio, its population, <r. ~ shew the
! expediency of adopting 'iis measure
He referred tn the great rxteHt "f TIT
land transpcrtation, which WAS 80 hea
w a burtlien ON the agriculture ut thu
| country that there was n" Involvement
to raise more than sufficient tor the
consumption of the people there, and
that it would be useless to produce any
thing for a foreign market; also the
burthsns on imports, such as salt aud
! other heavy articles. He stated these
facts to show the peculiar necessity tor
affordins water transportation by a
canal, tn the vast population which
would certainly spread over that coun-
try. The general advantages OF such
an Improvement were too obv i0us to re.
quire illustration from him. and he alb
stained from touching on them. lie
argued that this bill would not give an
artificial, but real and intrinsic add
tional value to the public lands there.
A great part of those lands we're now
reserved from sale, and might continue
to be reserved until they should receive
their full value from this Improvement;
aud speculation might be thus prevent
ed as they would then sell for what they
were worth. Tie expense to be incur.
red by this measure. it authorized'
would be inconsiderabIe, the advanta'
ges of it to the Union i'm aIculable.-
II the bill passed, Congress would not
be concluded on the subject. and were
expressly not pledged to make the ca.
nal. He referred to facts to show, how
ever, that canal there was very prac.
ticablo; that there was water sufficient
for all its purposes, &c. &c.
Mr.. Holmes OF Maine wished, before
he could support this bill, more infer
nation on the subject than he now pos
sessed. In all incipient measures. it
was natural to inquire-what nexta-
He desired to know what was to follow
this bill. He wanted to know, whether
this canal was to be made-by whom
it was to be made-in whom the pro-
perry of it, Or interest, would be i? &c.
1t was to 60 through the lands of the
U. States. but, he asked, in substance,
could the U. States have jurisdiction o.
yer it when completed-would the state
consent-would the L. States have ex-
elusive jurisdiction without, or even
with the Consent of the state-and
could the state give exclusive jurisdic-
ton &c. These we're questions which
admitted doubt; though on some of them
he himself had none. Suppose the
state should choose for any cause, to
stop this canal up, could the U. States
pre-. ent it &c. IF not, was it worth
while to make canal over which they
might not have complete control Z If
the state or individuals were to own
the canal. were the United States to
have no more interest in it than the ad-
ditional value which it might give 10
their lands I &c. He had no doubt the
United States could construct roads or
! canals in the states, but the exclusive
control and jurisdiction over the PRO.
perry of them was another question,
not SO clear, &c.
Mr.. Johnson of Louisiana, as there
appeared many doubtful questions con.
nected with this subject, which he wish
ed some little time to eCamine, moved
the postponement Of the bill to Wednes.
day.
Mr.. Trimbls spoke at some length,
to affnrd the information required by
Mr.. Holmes, and to obviate the objec-
tions which he had suggested against
the bill, and
The bill was then postponed to We'd
nesday.
Several bills were received from tbs
other House and read-that making
appropriations in part for the military
service was twice read and referred.
The bill for the relief Of Robert Pur.
dy, and the bill to alter the time oil
holding the District courts in Missis.
sippi, were severally considered in CON-
mittee of the whole, and subsequently,
ordered to a third reading.
Some private bills were further post.
poned; and
The Senate adjourned to Monday.
Saturday, January Z.
In consequence of the decease of Mr.
LINN, the House Of Representatives. aftei