Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-01-26

river, but the fact that that highway was un-
| obstrueted and available would reduce the
railroad tariffs and benefit the people to that
extent. He had been speaking to one of the
largest manufacturers of lumber In the State,
E. w. Durant, of Saltwater, who had told
him that his firm had built ninety dams on
the st. Croix and its tributaries, and wanted
| the government to keep away from that
stream. This was the way such interests
| should be looked after. The lumbermen
| should build their own dams and not ask the
government to do this work for them.
The speaker then alluded to the theft of the
| pine timber from government lands, and to
the manner in which the guilty ones escaped,
| and said that the lands that had cost this ring
but 81 .25 per acre and was overflowed by
| means of these dams would be charged for at
the rate of from S. to 500 per acre The
| reservoir bill was one of the greatest iniqui-
ties ever presented to this or any other
| legislative body. He could see that 1t
opened the doors for profitable investment,
peculation and fraud. 1t had been asserted
| that there was no use in debating this ques-
| ton, as the promoters of the scheme had seen
| majority Of the members, and that the whole
matter was fixed. He repudiatcd such state.
ments, for he thought the House too honor
| able body to consent to such plan of
| iniquity.
| Abiding to the millions expended on the
| TON duu NlSCOuSlu IlNcTSy d SCutluc olIllldI
pretense to this, Mr.. Smith said that the only
| results of the expenditure he has been able
| to discover were a palatial mansion in Wash
| ingtOn and some eighteen splendid mill sites.
He had no objections to the trial of the reser-
voir system, provided it did not interfere
WITH the appropriation for the improvement of
the navigable portions of the river, but the re-
| suit would be that millions
would be expended for the reser-
voirs, leaving but little or nothing for
| the building of wing dams or dredging. He
| did not condemn the reservoirs, but considered
| them of doubtful utility. He then alluded to
| the fact that 100000 towns of sawdust were
emptied into the river annually by the mills
at Minneapolis, forming solid filing to the
channel as far down as Hastings that was al
most impossible to dredge out. Those who
| were in favor of improving the river above the
| falls were doing all in their power to injure
| navigation below that point. If they can
prevent or delay the improvement of the river
| for as much as one year those corporations at
| the falls would make m Oney out of it, for
they would be able to get logs at their own
price
| In order to refute the charge that the cham
| Der of commerce of st. Paul did not under
stand this question Mr. Smith sent to the
clerks desk and had read resolution of the
chamber of May 10, 1880, condemning the
system and asking Congress to prevent the OBJ
struction of navigation by prohibiting the
throwing of sawdust, sidings and slabs in
the river. Concluding Mr. Smith disclaimed
any motive in opposing the memorial save q
desire to benefit the people as much MS pos
| sibe by the judiciOus expenditure of money
| for the improvement of our great national
highway.
Mr.. Wilson did not concur wholly in Mr..
| Smiths amendment, yet he did not approve of
| the reservoir system for reasons that to him
| were good and sufficient. 1t looked as if there
was big job in it. He believed it would be
detrimental to the navigation of the Missis-
| sippi. The people must look to that river as
an equalizer for the purpose of reducing the
| freights on produce. He tried to act for that
which would best conserve the interests of the
whole people. He did not care if the whole
| people of Minneapolis and st. Paul got rich,
provided they did not iDjure others by becom-
| ing so. The reservoir system would absorb
| all the appropriations for the upper Missis.
sippi, leaving nothing whatever for the re-
| moval of distractions below the falls. He
| did not want the money thus frittered away.
He offered an amendment to Mr.. Smith,
amendment asking for an appropriation for
one experimental dam which shall demonstrate
| the utility or in,Itility of the system. He
! thought this was fair to the supporters of the
reservoir system, but it should not go to Con-
gress without the most emphatic statement
that such appropriation must not interfere
with the continued Improvement of the river
at places where it is navigable.
| Mr.. Hicks admired the evolutions of the
two athletes who had spoken before him. He
had not believed that the gentleman from
Ramsey would have become SO intoxicated by
| dose of the census of 1880 as he appeared to
be. His speech was full of base insinuations
unworthy of the gentleman or of the House.
Either one of the amendments was polite way
| of killing the memorial. The committee on
commerce was to meet tomorrow, and if any
amendment was made the memorial would be
of no effect, as it could not reach the commit
| tee in time for action. He characterized az
base libels the insinuatiOns of Mr.. Smith that
the engineers were in league with timber
| thieves or that the members of this House had
been "seen' on the subject.
| Mr.. Smith disclaimed having made any such
| insinuations.
| Mr. Hicks reiterated the statement, and de-
cared that other equally groundless charges
| He said the engineers reports had
demonstrated that one dam would be able to
supply the river with 700 0,000, 900 cubic feet
of water annually, sufficient to float the largest
| steamers on the river at st. Paul. As for the
overflow, it would affect nothing but lot of
| tamarac swamps, of no value whatever. Not
an acre of tillable land would be overlooked.
lie ptcaueu guilty. 10 the charge tllsR Nltuucdp'
oils would be benefited, and greatly benefited
by the system, but points below would be ben
Gifted incidentally. There was more, talk
about stealing than reality. He wanted no
amendment to the memorial. Any amend
mcnt would be one that seeks to kill. He
would have no objections to appropriations
| for improvements below st. Paul, but did not
want them to kill the present project.
Mr.. Comstock argued at considerable length
in favor of the memorial, and showed that
the opposition to 1t was Democratic move
lfnpt to obstruct Improvements. BE read a
Communication from the engineers office.
explaining the system.
Mr.. Dunn supported Mr.. Smiths amend
ment. He did not think the feasibility of the
system had been demonstrated, and he
thought it a bad plan to recommend the con-
struction of forty-one dams before il had been
shown they would do any good. He was in
favor of that part Of the amendment asking
the passage of a law forbidding the dumping
of sawdust in the river. He did not believe in
improving the river at one spot and destroying
| its navigabil1ty at another.
| Mr.. McCracken deprecated Mr.. Comstock' s
attempt to make it a political question, for
politics had nothing to do with it.
| Mr.. Sabin opposed the amendment.
| Mr.. Hoyt opposed the memorial because it
L tod .,,<a