The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-12-12

Disability Against the Proposed Ca
nal Bonds Removed-BOnd Provis-
ion in the Bill q Point of Attack.
Mr.. Williams Objected to the Policy
of Issuing BOnds-ProvisiOn to Re-
imburse the Treasury for Money Al
ready Expended Was Defeated.
Washington, December An APP
preparation of $11 900, 900 was voted
today toward the construction of the
Panama canal. The amount was q
compromise between the SIG 800, COO
carried in the bill under consideration,
and an estimate of something over
$4,000, 900, recommended by Mr.. VIII
liams, the Democratic leader, to carry
on the work until the middle Of jan
uary. Mr.. Hepburn in charge of The
bill suggested that something over
; $11 10000 900 wouI carry on the wo:k
until March.
There was no intention manifest to
delay the work, the only argument FIR
cutting down the original estimate be-
ing that closer scrutiny might be had
Of the estimates. The bill was amend
ed in accordance with suggestions py
Mr.. Mann, Of illinois, directing he
President to require annual reports
from canal construction officers COW
ering all detail of work; requiring
such employees to give Congress any
information it may desire, and re-
Strfcting all expenditures to money
appropriated by Congress and to shat
received by the operation of the prop
erty of the Panama railroad.
Otherwise the bill was not amended,
and contains beside the appropriation,
a provision removing a tax disability
against the proposed bonds to be is
sued for the construction of the ca
nal, thus placing the bonds on a foot
ing with other government bonds, as
available for security for national
bank circulation, and to reimburse the
treasury for the money appropriated
in the bill. The bond provision in the
bill was a point of attack today. Mr..
Williams offered several unsuccessful
amendments. all seeking to abandon
the policy Of issuing bonds for the
canal work, on the ground that there
are sufficient available funds in the
treasury to meet all needed demands
for canal work. Mr.. Overstreet did
not succeed in amending the bill so
that the $40, 600, 1000 already expended
in canal construction might be refund
ed to the treasury from the sale of the
canal bonds. The bond policy Of the
two parties occasiOned the feature OF
the debate, and resulted in limited pol
itical discussion.
During the debate Mr.. Clark, of Mis-
souri,, asked Mr.. Hepburn if all or
most of the supplies for the canal were
not purchased by the New York and
Washington purchasing agents, al
though other agents were located at
New Orleans and Tacoma.
Mr.. Hepburn had no information.
Mr.. Clarz: How many ships have
we.
Give"
why don't some of them ply be-
tween New Orleans and Panama?
9" cannot say"
What I want to say is that in my
opinion discrimination is being made
against all that territory drained by
the Mississippi river and / MAINTAIN
that cheaper, all-water rates could be
made from Pittsburg by way of New
Orleans than by New York
Mr.. Wanger, of Pennsylvania, stat
ed that there was a line of steamers
plying between New Orleans and Col
on, but that it did not give rates as
advantageous as by the governments
own boats from New York.
"Why don't some of the steamers
run from New O~rleans?" demanded
Mr.. Clark.
II understand the port of New Or
leans was closed during a part of last
season." replied Mr.. Wanger.
"You are not the man l want TO
question:" retorted Mr.. Clark amlo
laughter. II want to talk to some
man who don't want to cut on bust
ness and give it all to the New Ycrk
gang"
A provision which would operate to
reimburse the treasury for the $40
O 900 already expended in the con-
struction of the canal from the sale
OF the canal bonds was proposed by
MIR. Overstreet. Indiana. Vigorous OPP
position to this was made by Mr.. WI
Hams. of Mississippi, who dramatically
calculated:
''Take this step if you dare. The
Democracy challenges you. There Is
a drop Of water somewhere which VII
overflow the CUP. What excuse are you
to offer the American people for Dor
rowing money at 2 per cent. when
you already have abundant funds In
the treasury and deposited in nat
ional banks?"
Mr.. Payne, of New York, followed
also in opposition to the amendment
This sum had already been paid ane
there was no need to put it back lnte
the treasury.
1--WE are running pretty Close" ne