Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

lieve will do so, but I do not think it would be wise or pertinent to connect that with the transfer of the canal, or impose upon the transfer any conditions other than those which are immediately connected with the property, which seems to me to be, as already stated, the enlargement of the Illinois and Michigan canal, and the improvement of the Illinois river."

Your committee unreservedly indorse the above recommendations and views of the Governor. Since the completion of the canal, it has been the policy of the State of Illinois to improve the navigability of the Illinois river, so that vessels drawing less than seven feet could at all stages of water pass from the Mississippi river to Chicago without obstruction. In furtherance of this policy, the State has already constructed two permanent dams, one at Henry, the other at Copperas Creek, which causes a constant supply of water in the Illinois river of never less than seven feet in depth, the entire distance from some miles below Peoria and Pekin, to the canal at Ottawa. The United States government has lately taken this work in hand, and is now engaged in constructing other similar dams, which are intended to continue this stage of water the entire length of that river. If the canal was now enlarged, so that river steamboats and other vessels drawing less than seven feet, could pass through it, we think the former policy of the State would be realized, and the commerce of the country vastly improved. We think this can be accomplished by the United States government without unreasonable expense, considering the great value of the property proposed to be ceded with the canal.

We think the proper conditions to be imposed upon the general government, in order to meet the views expressed in the Governor's late message, as well as by the interests of commerce, in case the canal property is ceded, to be: That the canal should be without locks or other obstructions its entire length; that it should be at least two hundred feet wide, so that Illinois river steamboats can pass each other and turn around in it, and should contain at least seven feet of water throughout.

We have considered the fact that the canal is constructed partly through loose soil, which is constantly sliding and caving in, and filling up the bed, by reason of the action of the current, the passing of steamboats, rains, quick-sands, etc., and partly through a solid rock bed. We are satisfied that where it is constructed through any other than a rock bed, it should be protected by sloping walls of stone masonry of sufficient strength and durability to permanently protect its banks from the aforesaid impairing causes. It was part of the original plan that there should be a continuous flow of water from Lake Michigan to the Illinois river, unobstructed by locks and dams, and which was still recognized as the continued policy of the State as late as 1865, as will be seen by the preamble to an Act of the General Assembly of that year, entitled "An act for the completion of the Illinois and Michigan canal, upon the plan adopted. in 1836," in which these words are used: "The original plan of the said canal was to cut down the summit so as to draw a supply of water for navigation directly from Lake Michigan, which plan was abandoned, for the time being, after a large part of the work had been executed, only in consequence of the inability of the State

to procure funds for its further prosecution." This original plan, we think, should now be carried out as one of the conditions of ceding it to the general government. By this means an unobstructed flow of water can be obtained from Lake Michigan to the Illinois river, which, if the canal be not less than two hundred feet wide, nor less than seven feet deep, would cause to flow by a given point, not less than one hundred thousand cubit feet of water per minute, and yet not cause so rapid a current as to seriously affect navigation. This amount of fresh water drawn from Lake Michigan through the south branch of the Chicago river, would probably entirely renew the water in that river twice in every twenty-four hours, thus causing a solution of the Chicago sewerage problem, and at the same time diluting the offensive matter to such an extent as to make it unobjectionable to the people residing along the canal and Illinois river. A canal of these dimensions would cause a new line of steamboats to ply between the Mississippi and the lakes, giving a new impulse to river navigation, and making a new avenue of commerce, not only between the north and the south, but between the east and the west.

J. HENRY SHAW,
L. C. CHANDLER,
Wм. M. DUFFY,
JOHN H. CRANDALL,
SAMUEL H. MARTIN,
W. B. HARVEY,
D. HERYER,

Majority Committee.

Mr. Shaw, from the majority committee on canal and river im provement, introduced House Bill No. 6, being a bill for "An act ceding the Illinois and Michgan Canal, and the locks and dams of the Illinois river, to the United States."

Which was read for the information of the House.

Thereupon, Mr. Stratton of Will, from the minority of the committee on canal and river improvement, to whom was referred so much of the Governor's message as relates to ceding the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the United States, asks leave to present to your honorable body a minority report, dissenting from the report of the majority of that committee, and earnestly objecting to the passage of the bill therein submitted for your adoption.

The minority of the committee thus dissent and object for the following reasons, to which the attention of your body is particularly solicited, as in themselves presenting insuperable considerations which must press for a rejection of said bill:

1. The bill of the majority of the committee will, if passed, attempt unconstitutional legislation. The constitution of this State expressly limits the labors of a special session of the General Assembly to such objects as are specifically enumerated in the call of the Governor under which the session shall be held. The call of the Governor, by virtue of which the General Assembly is now convened, invites action in reference to ceding the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the United States, and there ends its relation to the canal and river improvement interests of the State.

Yet the

[ocr errors]

*

title of the bill submitted by the majority of this committee declares it to be "for an act ceding' * * "the locks and dams of the Illinois river," as well as "The Illinois and Michigan Canal." So, also, the first section of the bill, after specifying the cession of "the Illinois and Michigan Canal, and all lots, lands, and interests in any real estate," etc., "held in trust" for such canal, provides, also, for the cession of property "belonging to the State of Illinois, situated on the Illinois river, near Henry and Copperas Creek." This latter described property has, it should be particularly noted, been repeatedly declared to be separate from the Illinois and Michigan Canal by the express action of the General Assembly itself. That body has, for instance, appropriated money out of the State treasury for the locks at Henry and Copperas Creek, because those locks were not considered as being, and were held not to be, of the Illinois and Michigan Canal; for the constitution of the State provides that "the General Assembly shall never loan the credit of the State, or make appropriations from the treasury thereof in aid of railroads or canals: Provided, that any surplus earnings of any canal may be appropriated for enlargement or extension." The fact that the General Assembly has appropriated moneys to the "enlargement and extension" of the system of slack-water navigation at Henry and Copperas Creek, which did not come out of "any surplus earnings" of the canal, but did come out of the State Treasury, conclusively establishes the truth upon which the minority rests its objection to the bill reported by the majority, which is, that the General Assembly itself has officially declared "the locks and dams" at Henry and Copperas Creek to be separate and distinct from the Illinois and Michigan Canal.

[ocr errors]

Therefore, the minority of the committee, while in favor of ceding those "locks and dams," also, to the United States, urge upon the General Assembly the fact that, at the present special session, your body cannot take any action in relation thereto. That act of cession to the United States can be made at the regular session of the General Assembly, and will not need to be submitted to the approval of the popular vote, as provided by the constitution in case of the Illinois, and Michigan Canal.

2. The bill submitted by the majority of the committee is utterly valueless for the object it professes to accomplish, in that in its second section it attaches to the act of cession conditions which the Congress of the United States will not and cannot accept; whereas, as the minority urge, and as the majority of the committee as freely concede, the people of Illinois desire that the United States shall accept the cession and forever maintain and control the Illinois and Michigan Canal in the interests of national commerce. The minority cannot believe that this General Assembly will give its consent to a bill thus certain to prevent the consummation of a general desire, and thus destined, if enacted into law, to defeat the popular will.

3. The bill of the majority would, should it be approved by your body, present the General Assembly of Illinois to the Congress of the United States and to the world in a position at once ludicrous in their view and humiliating to the people of Illinois. The passage of that bill would advertise the General Assembly as attempting the

role of a board of civil engineers, contracting for the performance of a vast work of improvement. involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars, while not only wholly without the data indispensably necessary to the drawing up of such a contract, but in total disregard of all the topographical and other physical and material facts attendant upon the work to be performed by the party to be engaged under said contract. Thus, the third section of the bill requires that the canal be enlarged to a width of 200 feet, while the enlarged Erie Canal, upon which 6,000 boats are employed each season, has a width of only seventy feet. It also demands a depth of seven feet, while the system of improvement entered upon by the State for the Illinois river, and now adopted and being perfected by the United States, provides only for an uniform water depth of six feet.

More particularly, that wonderfully scientific third section provides that the canal from Chicago to LaSalle shall be wholly "without locks and dams," whereas there are now fifteen of such necessary! These, besides guard locks. Under the bill, all these are to be torn away, and the waters of Lake Michigan are to be made to tumble into the Illinois river, with a fall which the survey of November, 1878, shows to be one hundred and forty-one feet and three inches between Chicago and LaSalle. Thus, the five locks at Lockport, having a fall respectively of 10.3 feet, 9.55 feet, 9.85 feet, 9.90 feet and 10.10 feet, or fifty-five feet fifty-five hundredths in all, are to give place to a foaming and roaring series of rapids, under the direction of the engineering skill born to Illinois under the fostering care of the Thirty-second General Assembly.

Still other illustrations of the results promised under this legislative board of civil engineers might readily be presented for the consideration of the General Assembly by the minority; but for further particulars in that direction, attention is invited to the profile reports of the Canal Commissioners of the State.

In conclusion, the minority submit to the General Assembly that a due regard for the clearly ascertained will of the people, the dignity and fair fame of our State legislation, and the interests of national commerce, require that the bill of the majority of the committee be rejected, and that an act of cession be adopted which will be much more simple in its provisions, and invite acceptance by the United States, instead of compelling rejection; and we recommend that the bill, of the minority be submitted for that of the majority.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

HARVEY STRATTON,
J. W. SIMONSON,
J. T. THORNTON,
HENRY WOOD,
ALEX. VAUGHEY,
F. M. ROBINSON,
Minority committee.

Whereupon, Mr. Stratton of Will, from the minority committee on canal and river improvement, introduced House Bill No. 7, being a bill for "An act ceding the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the United States."

Which was read for the information of the House.

Thereupon, Mr. Stratton of Will moved that 1,000 copies of the minority report of the committee on canal and river improvement be printed.

And the motion prevailed.

The following message was received:

A message from the Senate, by Mr. Terwilliger, Secretary:

Mr. Speaker: I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has passed a bill of the following title, in the passage of which I am instructed to ask the concurrence of the House of Representatives, to-wit:

Senate Bill No. 4, a bill for "An act ceding the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the United States."

Passed the Senate April 14, 1882.

GEORGE TERWILLIGER, Secretary of Senate. Mr. Cronkrite, by consent, called up Senate Bill No. 4, in the order of first reading, being a bill for "An act ceding the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the United States."

Pending which, Mr. Simonson moved that House Bills Nos. 6 and 7, and Senate Bill No. 4, in relation to the ceding of the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the United States, be printed and referred to the committee on canal and river improvement, with instruction. to report the same back to the House next Wednesday, the 19th inst., at 11 o'clock A. M.

And the motion prevailed.

Mr. Yancey introduced House Bill No. 8, being a bill for "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to amend section thirty-six (36) of an act entitled 'An act to revise the law in relation to criminal jurisprudence,' approved April 10, 1877.'"

Which was read by its title, and referred to the judiciary committee.

Mr. Martin of White offered the following preamble and resolution, and moved that the rules be suspended for the purpose of considering the same:

WHEREAS, His Excellency, the Governor of the State of Illinois, in this call and message has asked the General Assembly, at the present session, to provide for submitting to a vote of the people of the State, at the next general election, the proposition for the transfer of the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the United States; and

WHEREAS, While the Governor's message is replete with reasons why the canal should be ceded by the State, and constructed by the General Government, and silent upon the more important question as to whether the Government is likely to accept and construct said canal if transferred; and

WHEREAS, It would be treasonable and in violation of our oaths to support the Constitution of the United States to attempt to force anything upon the Government that it does not want, or at least indicate a disposition to accept; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Governor is hereby required, at his earliest convenience, to transmit to this House all information in his possession touching the disposition of the General Government to have and use said canal, and to accept and construct the same if transferred by the State.

And the motion was lost, and the preamble and resolution were referred to the committee on canal and river improvement.

Mr. Diggins was granted leave of absence.

At 10:50 o'clock A. M., Mr. Mitchell moved that the House adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. And the motion prevailed.

« AnteriorContinuar »