The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-22
CONGRESSIONAL.
DErEHHED DR0ArE.
SATUR RDAY, MARCH 1851.
[EyEHIkG SESSION CONTINUED

RIVERS AND BORIS.


| AND HARBoRs. .e..
Mr.. BORLAND | simply desire 10 say that do no
much proprety every village or wood yard upon th
slsrissPp river claim such an appropriation There
a nantes, injustice in IT, for this reason: If we taxi
away this sand bank, create new one al the landns
OF somebody else Everybody knows that if a bank i
taken Out o. The ryer in one place, il is ii
ahother we shall have TO follow it up. II remov,
Al al this point. we must follow il down the river; WI
must take away The sand bank from somebody's door. A
the Town Of Memphis where went reside in 1887
bas were formed Tor bali mile, and changed the whole
business relations OF the points the bluff new land
ing mas been made nearly mile down the river, from
lhe point where It was when went TO reside there. in
e spring oi 1887 u this appropriation should be made
must insist upon 1t that either my colieagce or myself
snail propose an appropriation for removing bal
from the front OF the Town where he resideshe town
Helena--Just below the mouth OF the st Francis here
well know the steamboat is obliged 10 turn half mile
out OF the way, IN order get into the town insist
that there IS as much necessity for removing the bar
Helena or al Napoleon. as for removing sand bank
81 Louis II will not be permanent Improvement If il
is made We only take 1t away from that place de-
posile y some where else, and do injury elsewhere
equal TO the benefit do there We cannot remove il
IRON ever ybody's door
| Mr.. PEARCE There was a document submitted TO
Congress long ago last September perceive upon
looking al the document that laid upon the Speak
ers table in The House o Represe the 10Th Of
September last and ordered TO be printed Knowing, as
and that generally get documents some six months
alter they are wanted presume that this will be printed
during the recess OF Congress. and that we shall get the
bound volumes or later This fact will be suffi-
cient excuse for my not having before That doc
nment contains the report frem which the senator from
Massachusetts read us an extraca report made 1874
but II does not give the present condition OF the habor
81 Louis, nor does explain the necessity at present of
making this appropriation II takes notice of the
works commenced under the authority of ST. Louis and the
Stale OF Illinois. | do not even know that the iodi.
vdual who drew the report was aware of the arrange
ment made between these two parlies Ipresume, from
all have been able 10 learn upon the subject. that these
improvements under the authority OF ST. Louis and the
State Of Illinois, will be sufficient effect the purpose If
So the present r.ei, I appropriation is unnecessary.
Mr.. ATCHSON. II there be anything in the argu-
nent of the senator from louisiana or of the senator
from Arkansas, equally applies all the fifty or one
hundred harbors TO which money appropriated for the
Improvement OF these harbors rivers II this PROPOSE
on Is To be defeated 1t stands upon precisely the same
footing with all the others, and they should all go The
same way. In all candor, will say that iee no great
anxiety as 10 The disposition made of this If is re-
tanned, vote against the bill; if il is stricken out vote
against the bill that stand utterly Indifferent 80
aI my vote is concerned, upon this subject But from
what knew OF IT, believe this 10 be Of the most
merorlous appropriations for the Improvement OF har
bors made IN this bill. - s@
Mr. BRADBURY. We are asked to appropriate fifty
thousand dollars lor the improvement OF the habor at
ST. LOUIS The discussion has developed the fact that
there is no harbor there, and needed The discus.
sion has developed the further fact that ,here
pie landing at the ety. above the gravel beds which it is
proposed To remove II we make the appropriation, we
benefit not the city OF St Louis whole but we BEN
eft portion of the landholders OF that city and at the
same time tina, we bes,ow benefit upon them, we
equally niure The portion above where the landing now
is would like to ask what ngh, We have to infct
an injury upon le property Of The andholders above,
We are informed that !hs gravel bed extend. bu, po.
ton OF the distance abreast OF the civ and that the
boats pass above II and a"a a" aoove it, If we remove
ne oar lheg not go 10 their present landing, but
WI. 30 TO new landing below SO far as we effect
hs by our legislation we prevent The OF the prop
cry above from enjoying their privilege We lnure
thar properly Would not any agent OF ours who is SET
TO work there be liable TO damages for the injury OF the
property of the owners Of the wharves above
But told that we must make this Improvement,
because portion OF the property holders desire to do
it, Would il not be remarkab legislation If we should
n,erpose between portions OF the city, for the
benefit of generally. but for the benefit Of one
portion OF that community, by giving them the COM
merce which you take away from the other portion p
for we know that there is ample landing AT ST. Louis
whether we make this change or not. And this j.
called national" object National Why sir, il is
not even broad enough 10 cover The whole city The
interests of whole city not be advanced
to benefit the inhabitants OF portion of the city, while
you equally njures property of the other portion II
perve the OF this government TO such
purposes as thisto such partial and local objects
ibs-l should like 10 know what we cannot undertake
submit that If this be not stricken out it is in vain to
struggle against any thing. .... q.
| The question was then taken upon the amendment.
and resulted--yeas ~, nays gas follows:
lEAs-MesHs. Bcrrien Borland, Bradbury, Bright,
Cemens' pav,, & o. nssspf pawso, pi'knson, Dodge
ton, Norris, Pearce, Rheu Sebastian Soulc Sturgeon
ITulney, Whicomb, and 1ulee-2l .
NAlS-Messrs Achisou, Badger, baldwin, Bell, Cass
Chase, Clarke, Cooper Davis OF Massachusetts Ewing
felch. Fooe, Greehe, Hale, Hamlin Jones, Mauguu,
Miller, Phelps, Ptau, Rintoul, seward Shields Smith
Spruauce, Unaerwood, Uphnm, Wales, and Walker %.
| So the amendment, rejected.
| Mr.. CLARKE desire 10 offer an amendment to the
bill. In lines a to lia, there is this provision
pPor the nprovcmeni of the hab,t Providence and
the removal rock ia Saukonnct river, Rhode Island
| five Thousand dollars
| move to amend by inserting twenty" beioe five "
TO make the appropriation $4,000; and Will SIM
ply slate the Tor presenting this amendment and
asking for the increased appropriation. The harbor al
Providence, in the course OF time, has become so filled
that large portion OF II totally inaccessible io
vessels OF any considerable burden Some ten twelve
yeas since bill Of this kind, making habor and
maie from the department That estimate has beer
continued although il was made many years ago.
an estimate to be made, ii would have been
much larger Than that contained IN the bill. Since thai
estimate made, being the first proposition for ap
propraion Tor that harbor, il has become filled thai
this appropriation would be totally useless In fact the
appro ration itself would scarcely provide the machines
necessary Tor filling that batbor There is the
son Tor making this appropriation, because the port oi
Providence is at the head OF the waters of Narraganse
bay and ii will certainly be conceded that there is nc
harbor upon our that furnishes so good and safe
retreat ior vessels al all OF The year therefore
move this amendment, without further taking np The time
of the Senate
Mr. FOOTE. shall not say any thing in direct oppos-
ton 10 this amendment, nor anything in favor
ct IT. But hail II as al most auspicons motion for i
clearly indicates that the bill about be amended,
law and 10 give more general Satisfaction to the country
than the present bill whoui any amendment would b'
likely 10 produce. But must say that my friend from
Rhode Island Is not entirely IN harmony with the dls,ih