The bill for continuing the canal was taken up.
The amendment offered by Mr. Maus, was laid upon the table, and the amendments of the committee concurred in.
An amendment was also adopted, limiting the amount of scrip to the wants of the canal until the next session of the Legislature.
Mr. LOGAN offered an amendment, providing that the certificates; should be countersigned by the Governor, Auditor, and Treasurer, which was lost; ayes 26, noes 54.
Mr. MOORE said he had examined carefully the bill under consideration and was satisfied the State could lose nothing by its operations. The only objection he had to it arose from a fear that this scrip would depreciate in the hands of the holders, and thus subject them to great loss.
Mr. NAPIER said he could inform the gentleman from McLean, that such would not be the case. He had seen the effects of issuing scrip last summer, and could bear testimony, that no such results will be apprehended. If the scrip of last summer issued without authority of law, and there were many who had doubts of its soundness on this account, had passed current, wit[h]out depreciation, he thought it afforded the strongest evidence that such would not now be the case, when they were invested with the authority of law. He hoped that the bill as amended would prevail. The loss to the State of suspending the canal, would be immense. The loss of stopping work on any other kind of work had no comparison to the loss which we should sustain by stopping this—every one acquainted with canalling knew that the work was of such a nature as to suffer more from suspension than any other.
House adjourned...1
The canal bill was again taken up for consideration.
Mr. LINCOLN moved an additional amendment, that not more than $500,000 in scrip should be in circulation at any one time. The amendment was adopted.
The question recurred on engrossing the bill as amended for a third reading.
(A long discussion arose upon this bill, involving the whole merits of the subject—in which Messrs.[Messieurs] FICKLIN and WEBB spoke against, and Messrs. BAKER and LINCOLN in favor of the bill. We may hereafter give notes of this discussion.)
Mr. DAWSON moved to strike out the whole bill and insert a provision ratifying the contract of Judge Young with Wright & Co. Without taking the question, the House adjourned.
1The House of Representatives resumed debate in the afternoon session.

Printed Document, 1 page(s), Sangamo Journal (Springfield, IL), 28 January 1840, 3:4,