Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-05-25
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY,, May 10, 1880.


On mo ion Of Mr.. Grundy the motion to Reconsider
the vo'e taken on rejecting the hill to provide for the
appointment OF Solicitor Of the Treasury, was taken
up and the vote having been the bill wa.
laid on the table.
On motion of Mr.. Chamber, the previous orders
were postponed, and the bill TO incorporate the
uia turnpike Company taken up and conside ed;
when
MIR. Chambers explained and advocated the bill ;
and
Mr. Smith of South Carolina, opposed its passage on
various grounds of which was, az conte nded by
him, that Congress had right give TO the Corpora.
non me mower OF condemnng, for its use, the property
Mr.. Benton asked il the Canal was to cross the Po,o
mac; and being answered in the affirmative, Mr.. b.
said there wa' an established axiom in Eng land that RI
Vers were only made 10 led canals but he had
expeceI that that principle could be applied the Po
omac river below tide Here, eaid he is be a
tiul river, on which the two cities situated, at
distance oil only seven miles from each other, with a
perfectly sale navigation and channel deep enough
hoat seventy four; and yet not content with these
natural advantages, canal was wanted Mr.. b. wished
10 know whether any OF the expenses OF the work
would fall on the United States. He knew the idea
had gone abroad that the United States were responsi.
BILE Tor the loan negotiated in Europe for the purpose of
constructing the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. He did
did not know il had been asserted during the gotta
tion, that the U. States reponsb'c but he knew
1t had been currently reported that 'hs Dutch Bank
ers loaned them money on the faith OF the United
States.
Mr.. Chambers replied that the loan had been negoti.
ated by one OF our most respectable citizens, terms
".
were not at all responsible though he admitted the fall
lacious idea, which had long since been abandoned had
gone abroad that they were so
MIR. Benton inquired whether ii had been submitted
az an argument TO the monied men of Europe to in.
duce them to loan their money, that the u States were
pledged Tor the safety Of the loan?
Mr.. Chambers answered, that he had no information
except such as had been derived from the gentleman
who negotiated the loan. That gentleman the late
Secretary OF the Treasury. knew too well what was due
to himself and 10 truth, have given the
couDenance TO such an idea.
Mr.. Tyler said a member Of the Committee on the
District OF Columbia, he had carefully examined into
the details OF the bill be- fore the Senae and had
no dculty on constitutional grounds to giving il hi.
sanction. The Senator from South Carolina had raised
constitutional obje ctions TO the bill He apprehe nded
ne was as rigid eonstitutionat as That gentleman;
dd The bill propose to 60 beyond the District OF Column
ba, and make canal without its limits he would 20
along with him in opposing II. Congress, with regard
10 the District OF Columbia was in the situation of its
local Legislature, and could not the FORE constitution
ally, be prevented from going the same extent for
Internal purposes, as the State Legislatures. He (Mr
~ would object, as much as any gentleman, 10 taking
money from the Treasury to be applied to the purposes
Of this cans on that subject he believed, that the
gentleman from South Carolns and himself wonld not
differ; TOR he thought the corporations OF the District
ongh' 70 be supported by its own fund.-, and not those
OF the Government
Mr. Suilh Of s. C. said the most material subsection
ne had made to the bill had been answered. either
by the gentleman from Maryland, or the gentlemen
from Virginia. and that was, whether Congress could
coDsIuonalIy grant any corporation the right Of IA
king for is private property, by the deci.ion OF
few indiviuas Some Of the pror-r ty, he said, bor-
defing the canal 10 be made, very valuable: and
the owners held il high But he did wish TO consume
time in considering the value OF The property TO be
placed al the disposal of the Canal Company: the I'm
eonstitutonalty Of the measure was aptarent az we
might Congress pass ~ 10 give to the property Of
b. would not give up TO pass this hill with thai
Objectionable feature in IT, (Mr. s. pursued this part OF
The argument at great length, and with much force
lie had not thought Of a,k ng the question properly
asked by the Senator from Missouri, whether the canal
was TO cross The river not IL nattered but little where
was TO run, for If made at all the u States would have
10 make IT,
MIR Forsyth spoke at length in opposition 10 the hill
he did not believe II calculated TO he Of the slight
et utility 10 the public, or 10 the subsctibers The
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal properly terminated all
Georgetown, and there safe and unob, tructed
navigation from there 10 Alexandria, which ought 10
render the expense Of cutting additional canal Who'll
" unnecessary. MIR. +. gave history Of the proceed
ngs which caused the commencement OF the canal from
the Little Falls TO Washington, creating useless ex
pense OF bali million Of Dollars. He censured in
strong terms, the folly Of crossing the Potomac
by means OF an aquedUct constructed at great
ezp'n'e when the river could be crossed for nothing
To make canal 10 Alexandra when there was a safe
navigation Of one Of the noblest rivers in the world,
was species Of the folly by which the Chesa.
peake and Ohio Canal CospanY hal already incurred
useless expense OF half million Of dollars He be-
lieved the canal would the pyrposes for
which was intended, and that II Copgre passed the
law before them, they would be aparry 10 The decep.
ton by which many ignorant inexperienced persons
would readily vote for any scheme which promised 70