Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-07-01
sTHIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
SATURDAY, JUNE "a, 1854.
The SENATE did not sit to-day.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

| OF New York volunteers.
Senate bill for the relief Of Moses Olmstead.
bill to create and provide pension for David Towle
bill to provide pension for Capt Thos. Porter.
Senate bill for the relief of Priscilla G. smonds
bill for the relief Of Samuel Mcknight Of Kentucky
A bill for the relief Of VIM. Wallace Of Illinois
bill for the relief Of Geo. NJ Bentley, of Indiana
Senate bill for the relief of Zadoc G. Inghram
Senate bill for the relief of Llewellen Washington
Senate bill for the relief Of Ira Day, of Vermont
bill for the relief Of VIM G.. HoWison.
bill for the relief of the heirs Of Capt Mathew Jack,
deceased
bill for the relief of the heirs Of Lot Hail. deceased.
bill for the relief Of the legal representatives Of
Henry Hoffman
CIVIL AND DIPLOMATIC BILL.
The House went into Committee of the Whole Mr. Orr
Of s. G. in the chair and resumed the consideration of
the bill making appropriations for the civil and dpo-
matte expenses of the Government for the year ending
June 80, 1885, the pending question being the amend
ment Of Mr.. SMITH, Of Virginia. appropriating $4,000
for the completion Of the bridge the Potomac at
the Little Falls
Mr.. McMULLEN doubted the policy Of the Govern
ment to build this bridge at all but if the committee
we're determined that it should be constructed, he in
sisted that the Little Falls not the proper SITE By
building bridge at Georgetown they would accommo-
late not only all the travel which passed the Little
Falls bridge, but also the travel Of Alexandria and the
whole South. II this appropriation should be made for
the Little Falls bridge Congress would be again called
upon to build one opposite to Georgetown.
Mr. MAY said that the site Of the Little Falls bridge
that had been selected for more than fifty years
ana gentleman from quite mistaken
the opinion that it not favorable location 1t was
the best within fifty miles along the Potomac. Should
this bridge not be built it would be most serious dis
appointment and injury to the people both sides Of
the river.
Mr.. FLORENCE moved On amendment to the original
proposition providing that the work should be placed in
charge Of civil engineer of experience and ability and
that the whole cost should exceed O00 the
tract to be made with the lowest and best bidder after
advertisement for proposals.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr.. McMULLEN contended that by building bridge
at Georgetown they would supersede the necessity Of
building at the Little Falls and reminded the COM
mittee that bridge the river Georgetown could
be erected on the abutments Of the aqueduct.
Mr.. STANTON, of Kentucky, said that bridge at
Georgetown would cost five six times much
at the Little Falls. bridge needed at the latter
point to accommodate large section Of the State of Yr
GINA, which had much intercourse with the cities of
mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, expressed himself in
favor OF the appropriation and trusted the vote would
now be taken.
The question was taken, and the amendment of Mr.
Smith was agreed to: Ayes II, noes So.
Mr. CHANDLER moved to insert in the bill the fol-
lowing:
For continuing the aqueduct for bringing water the
city Of Washington agreeably to the plan adopted by the
President Of the United States according the of
the act Of Congress approved March 3D. 1853 100000
Mr. G. said that the amendment made an appropria-
ton to continue work already begun and well begun;
to continue work authorized by an act of Congress-
considerable portion Of which had already been accom-
shed and large arrangements made for its prosecution
lie therefore deemed proper at this time to ask this
sum- that this work might be as soon as pos
sble towards completion. The United States Govern
ment was very deeply concerned in the prosecution and
early completion of this aqueduct far as regarded
their public buildings and the depositaries of their pa
pers the security Of which much depended The
health of the people and their convenience required
the construction Of this work.
Mr.. STANTON, of Tennessee opposed the amendment,
for the that the plan adopted and the work pro-
ected were Of the most extravagan and unnecessary
kind This plan proposed to bring into this city less
the present tmc city London with population
Of two millions and half only about forty mil
lion gallons were brought in daily The plan being
prosecuted proposed to provide water for population
more than sixty times greater than that which
pied the city Of Washington.
Mr.. STEPHENS, of Georgia, replied to Mr. STANTON.
Congress Che said) entrusted the selection of plan
the President and for he inclined to believe that
they should not 60 beyond his decision In his opinion
they could not have too much water here and therefore
lie would say ego on
Mr.. SMITH, Of New York, remarked that, while the
gentleman had said "go on" he would say stop. He
was opposed to this and other plan for the supply
of water at the expense Of the Government They
at the threshold Of vast expenditure and had better
trace their steps than go forward If this work should
be executed by the Government it would be of
great corruption to both the Government and individuals
all experience these matters would be fatty and
Phaticaly contradcted Private enterprise could con-
srct the work and keep it in repair at half the amount
it would cost the Governments and why not then, leave
it to be accomplished by jon-stock company? He was
very willing, however, that the Government should share
in the expenditure He believed that the seat of govern
ment should be among people who could sustain them
selves They the most virtuous people who lived
their own energies and labors.
Mr.. HAMILTON urged the necessity of the work, and
referred to the condition of of the streets Of the
metropolis. 1t was disgrace to city having forty
thousand inhabitants that it not better supplied
with water.
Mr.. HOUSTON opposed the amendment, and said that
the time the first appropriation made one sup
posed that it would be the Of mucting the Gov
eminent in some six millions Of dollars
Mr.. BARRY said that this particular plan had been
adopted and should be carried out Opposition to it
which had been fairly considered and fairly rejected and
whose judgments warped by disappointment Their
objection therefore, to the work should have weight
Mr. PARKER said that when the last Congress passed
the appropriation of 900 in reference this work.
not in ten dreamed that they would back
here and find contract made for the purpose Of
structng this aqueduct. They find themselves in
voved in contract Of millions upon millions simply by
voting for item to procure plans for the introduction
Of water into this city.
Mr.. EWING urged various amusing reasons why this
appropriation should be made and replied to the argu
ments of Mr.. SMITH, Of New York
Mr.. STANTON Of Tennessee, commended that the pre-
sent plan would cost twice much the estimate Of
Capt. Meigs, and condemned II highly extravagant
Mr.. PERKINS, of New York, also believed that the
work would than the estimate, and said that
the Government expended vast amount Of money here
for the purpose Of adorning city which thrust itself
upon the treasury every hour.
Mr.. VANSANT referred to the history Of the work,
age the present plan and the engineer having the work in
He he