of Livingston and Fulton: That the committee were ignorant of the subject on which they affected to give the house information and that in respect to the plan by which Chancellor Livingston proposed in the year 1798 to propel a boat by steam and in respect to the boats built by Livingston and Fulton being the invention of Fitch, patented to him in 1791 and in respect to Governor Ogden's boat being built on principles invented by Fitch and improved by Dod, I shall shew that the committee had no sort of testimony: that they did not ask for testimony, but were content with the representations of the petitioner.

I further intend to maintain, that the law which was recommended by the committee, was in effect a repeal of the exclusive grant to Livingston and Fulton, and was therefore inconsistent with the "faith, honor and justice of the state.”

These are the charges, to repel which your letter is ostensibly written; but that you might not lose such an opportunity of bringing forward the whole weight of your ability in opposition to the exclusive right, you have questioned the policy, the justice, validity, and constitutionality of the grant. And you have made objections to it on these grounds, not always indeed as proceeding from yourself; but you have presented some of them as points in the argument of Governor Ogden, which you have characterized as affording "conclusive reasoning."

This will therefore lead me into a consideration of these objections. And as you have transferred to your pages the arguments which you have so repeatedly heard urged in opposition to the exclusive grant, I will endeavour to put in the convenient form you have adopted the arguments which have been presented in support of its policy, justice, validity and constitutionality.

This course will afford me an opportunity of noticing, as incident to the several points which will be discussed, some of the matters in the Biography of Fulton that have given you offence. You are not, however, to expect an answer to your letter. There is much in it which affects me "as the idle wind which I respect not." And you may be assured, if I did not think it intended and calculated to have an undue influence on the decision of the questions which there is an avowed intention of again bringing before the legislature, I should not disturb the complacency with which you may regard its merits. I certainly shall not attempt to controvert your opinion of the Biography of Fulton as a literary production; because, though expressed with some ill-nature, it is, I think, just. No person can hold that work in less estimation than I do myself. And I have most sincerely regretted that the task I had to perform, did not fall to the lot of one who would have done more justice to my friend: The Biography has been justly characterized as the pro

66

duction of an unpractised writer. It was also composed when I had more than one indispensable professional engagement of interest and importance to occupy my attention." If in truth, however, you meant to practice any forbearance in your criticism, permit me to return it by a compliment. I assure you, I consider your style as the best part of your performance. Let me now also request your critical forbearance for these pages. They are the production of a few days, and written with a mind much embarrassed by necessary attention to other duties.

The objections which I shall consider to the laws or grauts under which the representatives of Messrs. Livingston and Fulton claim an exclusive right to navigate the waters of this state by steam, are the following:

First: That the grant was impolitic, inasmuch as it was the grant of a monopoly.

Secondly That it was made in derogation of the rights of John Fitch-the first law in favor of Mr. Livingston having been passed previous to the expiration of the time for which a like exclusive right had been granted to Fitch by a prior law.

Thirdly That the first law in favor of Mr. Livingston, was passed on representations to the legislature which were "not true in fact." That consequently not only that, but all the subsequent laws passed in relation to the same matter, may be repealed consistently with the faith, honor and justice of the statę.

Fourthly: That the state after the adoption of the federal constitution, had no power to make such an exclusive grant. Or if it had, that it cannot interfere with the rights which a patentee acquires under the constitution and laws of the United States, or with the powers which congress have to regulate commerce.

These, I believe, are all the objections that have been made to the laws, passed in favor of Mr. Livingston, or of Mr. Livingston and Mr. Fulton; considering them merely as granting an exclusive right. There are other objections to them, but they relate to the penalties and forfeitures by which it was intended to secure the enjoyment of the grant. These I shall state and consider in the sequel, confining myself at present to the objections above mentioned.

Before I enter upon the discussion, in the order I proposed, I beg to correct an error, which appears to me to have been committed by all the opponents of the exclusive grant. They seem to consider the representations of Messrs. Livingston and Fulton as questioning the power of the state to repeal the laws which conferred the exclusive right. But the advocates of that right have never denied such power in the legislature. The legislative authority, so far as it is not limited by the state or federal constitution, is supreme.Undoubtedly a state may, at any time, under any circumstances, repeal any law it has passed. The

legislature may not only take from me and others the property we hold under the grants to Livingston and Fulton, but it may, if it please, take any other property we have acquired under any existing laws of the state. The question, therefore, is not concerning the power which the legislature had to repeal Fitch's law, or which it now has to repeal or in any way alter or modify the laws in favor of Livingston and Fulton; but it is to be determined what it may do consistently with those principles of policy and morality, by which all men, whether legislators or individuals, ought to be governed. When writing your book, you should have considered that you were not discussing some law quibble before an inferior tribunal, that might be embarrassed by the quotation of technical rules; but that you were appealing to the supreme power of a state, to exercise its highest authority, and calling upon it to execute what you conceived to be "consistent with faith, honor and justice." Let us then, "I beseech you,” in the consideration of the questions now before us, endeavour to throw off those trammels, with which a constant recurrence, in the exercise of our profession, to technical rules, is apt to fetter our minds.

It is contended that the law, conferring an exclusive right, is impolitic, because it grants a monopoly. You have not been unaware of the reproach which this word carries with it, nor have you been unwilling to avail yourself of the preju