Mr. LINCOLN, from the select committee to which was referred the Canal bill, reported the some back to the House, with the following amendment: “the scrip hereby authorized to be issued, shall be applied to existing contracts.”2

Mr. LINCOLN said that although he voted for its engrossment before, yet he did it somewhat reluctantly. He was under the impression that the scrip would be paid out for less than its nominal value; but as it was to be paid oat for contracts made in view of money, and if paid with scrip at its nominal value, no loss would result therefrom; but on the contrary, the State would make something. Upon the scrip which is now [proposed?] . . .3 whereas, we would have to pay interest upon money. Contracts had been made when the prices for labor, provisions, &c.[etc], were high; and hence contractors were willing to take scrip, as they would not thereby sustain as much loss as they would, were they to abandon entirely their contracts. He thought that we should lose much by stopping the work on the Canal—that a mutual injury would result to the State by suspending all operations there. It would be, continued Mr. L., very much like stopping a skift in the middle of a river—if it was not going up, it would go down. The embankments upon the Canal would be washing away, and the excavations filling up. He, for these reasons, was for the bill as amended; and, in conclusion, would humbly express the hope that it might pass.4

Mr. MAUS offered an amendment providing that any contractor may abandon his contract, if he does not wish to receive scrip for payment upon the same.

On motion of Mr. FICKLIN, the bill and amendments were laid upon the table.5