Evening star., 1921-02-13

having afterward to go with their
produce to Alexandria by land.
1t was moved that the committee
rise and report progress. Mr.. Macon.
| the Speaker, opposed this motion, be-
cause it would leave the business just
where it stood, but as he was de-
termined to vote against the bill in
any and every shape. he was prepared
to decide now. The gentlemen in
favor of this dam and causeway. he
said. say it will do no harm. but where
is the demonstration? On the other
| hand serious apprehension was enter
tanned of its injurious effects upon
the navy yard in the Eastern branch
and its causing obStructions in the
harbor of Alexandria. At the last
session an application was made for
d permanent bridge across the Poto-
mac with draw for the passage of
vessels. The petitioners urged the
general utility of the measure to all
persons travelling between the north
and south. but particularly the vast
benefit accruing to the inhabitants OF
the District of Columbia by affording
q solid and secure means of inter
course between its several parts. This
measure was opposed by the present
petitioners on the ground OF the com
pact between Maryland and Virginia
securing the right of free navigation
of the river and also alleging that
the navigation Of Georgetown would
be impeded. The argument which they
applied then now applies against them
and it ought in the minds of some
legislators to apply with equal sue
cess.
William Findley of Pennsylvania
favored the bill because the deepen
ing of the channel at Georgetown was
of interest to some of the citizens of
the western counties of Pennsylvania.
several of their boatable creeks near
i,, L ipsp with fhOSe of the PO-
tomac.
Calvin Goddard of Connecticut
hoped the committee would rise and
the subject be postponed until suf-
ficient light was obtained to guide
their votes to a proper decision. and
he urged caution in dealing with such
a momentous question.
George Washington Campbell of
Tennessee would not declare himself
for or against the bill. but he was
disposed to take note of the applica-
tions to Congress made from time to
time by the inhabitants of the Dis
trict OF Columbia whether to redress
grievances or procure benefits. But
he by no means approved OF the prin-
ciple of legislation without repre-
sentation. He regretted that they
were placed in this unfortunate situ-
alton.
Henry Southard of New Jersey said
he had not considered this subject of
much consequence at the outset, but
he found that its Importance in
creased as it toiled along; He spoke
at length in favor of the bill.
John Randolph requested that the
act of cession by Virginia be read. He
said that it clearly appeared that
virginia had not ceded and had not
intended to cede to the United States
any right acquired under her COM
pact with Maryland. He made long
speech, the intent of which was to
show that Virginia should have been
deepen the channel or "obstruct the
navigation of the River Potomac
somewhere else.
John Dawson of Virginia said he
was convinced by his colleague (Mr.
Randolph) that it required a joint act
thing to the Potomac river"
Roger Griswold of Connecticut said
he believed the question of the ex-
pediency of the bill was settled. but
it was now objected that Congress
have no exclusive jurisdiction over
the Potomac" He submitted observa-
tions, quoted the Constitution and re-
cited the acts of cession by Maryland
and Virginia giving to Congress COM
plete authority over ten miles square.
Roger Nelson of Maryland argued
at length that any rights Maryland
and Virginia had over the Potomac
river had been relinquished when they
ceded the ten-mile square to the
United States.
Christopher Clark OF Virginia at
tackled the bill in a speech of con-
siderable length. He brought forth