A sop of $200,000 was tossed to those counties through which no canal or railroad was to pass.[61] What were prudent men to do?  Should they support this bill, which they believed to be thoroughly pernicious, or incur the displeasure of their constituents by defeating this, and probably every other, project for the session?  Douglas was put in a peculiarly trying position.  He had opposed this “mammoth bill,” but he knew his constituents favored it.  With great reluctance, he voted for the bill.[62] He was not minded to immolate himself on the altar of public economy at the very threshold of his career.[63]

Much the same issue was forced upon Douglas in connection with the Illinois and Michigan canal.  Unexpected obstacles to the construction of the canal had been encountered.  To allow the waters of Lake Michigan to flow through the projected canal, it was found that a cut eighteen feet deep would have to be made for twenty-eight miles through solid rock.  The cost of such an undertaking would exceed the entire appropriation.  It was then suggested that a shallow cut might be made above the level of Lake Michigan which would then permit the Calumet River or the Des Plaines, to be used as a feeder.  The problem was one for expert engineers to solve; but it devolved upon an ignorant assembly, which seems to have done its best to reduce the problem to a political equation.  A majority of the House—­Douglas among them—­favored a shallow cut, while the Senate voted for the deep cut.  The deadlock continued for some weeks, until a conference committee succeeded in agreeing upon the Senate’s programme.  As a member of the conferring committee, Douglas vigorously opposed this settlement, but on the final vote in the House he yielded his convictions.  In after years he took great satisfaction in pointing out—­as evidence of his prescience—­that the State became financially embarrassed and had finally to adopt the shallow cut.[64]

The members of the 10th General Assembly have not been wont to point with pride to their record.  With a few notable exceptions they had fallen victims to a credulity which had become epidemic.  When the assembly of 1840 repealed this magnificent act for the improvement of Illinois, they encountered an accumulated indebtedness of over $14,000,000.  There are other aspects of the assembly of 1836-37 upon which it is pleasanter to dwell.

As chairman of a committee on petitions Douglas rendered a real service to public morality.  The general assembly had been wont upon petition to grant divorces by special acts.  Before the legislature had been in session ten days, no less than four petitions for divorces had been received.  It was a custom reflecting little credit upon the State.[65] Reporting for his committee, Douglas contended that the legislature had no power to grant divorces, but only to enact salutary laws, which should state the circumstances under which divorces might be granted by the courts.  The