The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1845-01-23

OAAA0- - - 49, taot ~ ATI0N
ment OF the Wabash be undertaken in con-
nexion with that subject.
The further consideration of the bill was
then, on motion of Mr.. Haywood, at the sug-
gestion Of MIR. Buchanan, deferred until
Thursday.
THURSDAY, Jan. 2, 1916.
The bin to grant certain lands TO Indiana
to complete the Wabash and Erie Canal
coming up for consideration
Mr.. Niles said he did not understand the
ground upon which aid was asked in this
case. Was it on the opinion that Congress
had a right to devote public funds, or (Which
was the same thing) the public domain, TO
purposes of State Improvements? He had
thought that this doctrine was long since ex-
ploded. IF this was not the ground of the
bill, what was it? He objected to the prin-
ciple of the bill. Where was the difference
between giving land or money!? Besides, it
this precedent was established, where would
1t end? We cannot refuse similar grants to
other States. He had always been opposed
TO this mode of legislation, buthad uniformly
gone so faras he could, in similar cases,
without infringing upon what he held 10 be
the constitutional principle. He could not
see the justice of the present claim, or its
conformity with the legitimate powers Of.
Congress. He did not believe that the Sen
ate had a right TO put lis hand into the public
purse, or to carve out the public domain for
this or similar purposes. There could be
no Justification in doing that for one State
which they did not do for another. All had
equal claims.
Mr.. Hannegan said that it was far from his
or his colleagues intention, or that of any
of the thousands of petitioners for the aid
which this bill was intended TO grant, 10 adj
vocate the aid son ght upon the ground which
the Senator from Connecticut had assumed.
The public work which Indiana wished to
complete was d OF a local one, orfor the bene-
fit of that State exclusively. 1t was in ev-
cry sense a great national work. Its result.
would be to create a market for the United
States land, and thus benefit the public
Treasury. In case of war, this canal would
most materially increase the national ia cili-
ties for the rapidly moving of troops and mu-
nitions of war in a way which couldnot other
wise be accomplished In every point of
view, the work was OF great national impor-
lance, and not liable in any way TO the OBJ
Elections of the Senator from Connecticut.
MI. Woodbridge said that the basis of the
bill was altogether different from that assum-
ed by the Senator from Connecticut. The
Government was a great landholder, con-
trolling and governing the disposal of mil
lions upon millions of acres. The land in
question, part of which this bill proposed to
give TO Indiana in furtherance of this great
national work, had been in the market many
years, and had not yet found a customer
How was this land to be raised in value and
brought into use but by intersecting it with
roads and canals, thereby planting upon it
settlements, and villages, and towns? The
land itself has no inherent value, Its value
has yet TO be acquired and this value would,
in a great measure, be acquired by the COM
pletion of the canal.
1.-THE property of the Government is TO be
thus enhanced by this canal, should it not
pay something for this increase of value? If
Government held property in a city-New
York, for instance--would it not be liable
to taxation for Improvement? Surely, then,
the General Government ought not now to
fold its arms and look on, without lending a
helping hand 10 accomplish that from which
it would eventually derive SO important an
advantage. This measure, Mr.. w. added,
had no connection with the question OF IN
~ternat improvement. lis object was to rem
der available and of value property of the
United States which is now unavailable and
of no value. All that is asked is TO run a
canal through the land, aud to appropriate a
small portion of the public land to raise the
value of the remainder. The passage of this
bill will not diminish the wealth or resources
oil the United States; it will tend, on the
contrary, most materially 10 increase them.
Mr.. Benton made a few observations IN
reference to the memorial from Vincennes,
ofthe settlement and history of which city
he gave a rapid and interesting sketch; he
was not understood as in any way opposing
1.-THE object of the bill.
Mr.. Niles contended that the bill had re-
ference to local objects, and not to national
ones, notwithstanding other States and sec
lions of the country might have a contingent
interest in the completion of the canal. lie
reiterated his objections. If the lands IN.
question (said he are, as the Senator from
Michigan states, ofno value. then the friends
\ Of the bill and the State of Indiana will gain
nothing by the bill. He could not admit
there was any weight in the arguments which
he had heard against the views which he had
submitted TO the Senate.
MIR. Critenden regarded the bill as one of
great importance, and should vote for it with
+ great pleasure. 1t was a most valuable mode
of investing public lands TO appropriate a
mart of them to canals and other internal i'm
provements, tending besides to do away with
the various plans for reducing and gradual
ing the price of the national domain.
MIR. Bagby said that if this was a national