Iowa capitol reporter. [volume] (Iowa City, Iowa) 1841-1855, 1847-06-23
improvements OF the Raptds.

ttrast with the position generally assumed by that
paper, and By the locoloco editors in Iowa, in
relationto TIE Improvement Of the navigation Of
the Mississppi river
The editor says awe have frequently adver-
ted TO the paramount Importance Of a removal Of
| the distractions TO the navigation Of the upper
| Mississippi.o We have been regular reader OF
the Reporter, and if the editor has FREQUENTLY
| adverted to the PARAMOUNT importance of re-
moving those distractions, it has escaped our
notice; and we advise the editor to republish,
| for the benefit Of the democracy, the paragraph
alluded to.-[ Iowa Standard
Before proceeding to refute the glaring
Misrepresentation contained in the above
extract, we will challenge the Standard to
point out or quote the first paragraph or
sentence in our columns ,ofany date, which
''contrasts'' tn the least with the article
upon this subject published in the the Re-
porter Of the 9th inst. II they have not q
file Of the Reporter at hand, they shall
have free access TO our files, for the pur-
pose of enabling them either to prove the
truth Of their statement, or Of acknowledg-
ing its fallacy.
We might, if our space would admit Of
it, quote from our paper during the last
two years twenty or thirty paragraphs
similar to those subjoined, in favor Of an
appropriation BY Congress for the improve
ment Of the Rapids. The writer OF the
above extract may be "a regular reader Of
the Reporter" but it is evident that he
perusesit only to catch at something which
he may croak over and torture into mon
strous "locofoco" opposition to the pecu-
mary interests of the country. Had he
read our paper with any other object he
could not have fallen into such serious
error with regard to our position upon
the subject Of the Mississippi river i'm
provement.
That sheet further remarks:
"For the first time have we been informed,
(if our memory serves us) that that paper holds
that the Mississippi river is a GREAT NATIONAL
THoRoUGHGARE, and that it is constitutional
and right to improve it by the General Govern
ment."
We presume that his "memory" does
serve" him, but it serves him very poor
ly, and is bad memory indeed. To show
tie utter iallacy Of the intimation that we
have not heretofore, as now, regarded the
Mississippi river as national thorough
fare, and therefore legitimate object of
improvement by the General Government,
we invite the attention Of our readers
to the following article which we publish
ed just prior to the last October election {:
ENVIRONMENT OF THE Mrss.ssIpr1.-The
silly wings think they can operate upon the peo-
pie Of lowe, by exciting their prejudices against
Mr.. Folks Administration on account Of his
veto of the River and Harbor bill. Now every
man of sense knows that by the log rolling cor
| rnption which marked the inception and pro-
gress Of that bill, many objects Of improvement
were included which were not of national
character and were therefore unconstitutional /;
but As.one th... go. not included the apprppri-
alton for the Mississippi river. Every intelligent
school boy knows that that river is NATIONAL
| HIGHWAY AND A LEGITIMATE OBJECT OF I'M
PRovEMENr BY THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
Mr.. Polk has since distinctly stated that he
would not veto bill solely for its improvement;
20 says the Missouri Republican, wing paper.
The PEOPLE OF Iowa ARE vITALLy INTER-
ESTED IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE MIssIs-
srrpI RIVER. The question is, by what course
will they be most likely to obtain an appropria-
ton? by sending Representatives and Senators
to Congress who are opposed to the Administra-
ton and to the democratic majority in that
body, and who would therefore be without in
fluence with those whose support to the meas
| ure is indispensable? Or should they send dem
| ocrats, who will have weight and influence in
Congress? If the latter every man who wishes 10
see the Mississippi improved, will vote the
Democratic State ticket and for democratic
members of the General Assembly, and thus Sc
cure both democratic Representatives and dem
ocratic Senators in Congress-
By the above it will be seen that we
have always advocated the constitutional
right and the duty of Congress to make
adequate provision for the Improvement Of
the Mississippi. But it does not neces-
sarily follow that it is right for Congress
to appropriate a large sum for the St. Louis
harbor, for the benefit of the citizens of
that town. who can we'll afford to improve
their own harbor; nor do we concede the
constitutional right Of Congress to squan-
der millions of the public money in fruit
less attempts to construct harbor at the
mouth Of every little creek and inlet along
the lake coast and sea board. Here is the
real difference between US and our oppo-
nents. We say that the claim for the i'm
provement Of the Mississippi is of the first
superior, perhaps, to all others. =
The wings put it on par with all the
| rest, and include it in the same bill. This,
as our readers well know, was the cause
Of its failure at last Congress; and this
course, if persisted in, will defeat it again.
The truth Of the matter is, the Standard
sees that it is perfectly futile to attempt to
manufacture political capital out of this
Chicago convention humbug, unless it can
make the people believe that the democrat.
ic party are opposed to the improvement
Of the Mississippi Rapids. Itseized with
avidity upon paragraph which appeared
l - L.,