You heard counsel, it is true, as you say, but of that we shall speak hereafter. Yet you contend, that the committee had evidence before them which justified their report. Now, notwithstanding the boldness with which this assertion is made, I deceive myself very much if I do not shew, that this assertion "is not true in fact." I use these words in their technical sense, and I mean to shew it from your own book. What evidence does it appear from your statement the committee had before them, to prove that the representations recited in the act of 1798, were not true in fact? Simply the statutes of the state. Neither more nor less than this, the volumes of the laws of NewYork, containing the several acts which had been passed subsequently to 1798, to extend and confirm the privileges granted by that act.

The statute book proves that the Chancellor's attempts to construct a boat, which would go four miles an hour, were fruitless.-It proves also, that new hopes to accomplish this object were succeeded by new disappointments. And I have admitted, in the biography of Fulton, that this was the case. But does this admit that he could not, in 1798, have possessed a new mode of applying the engine, or that his mode might not have been advantageous, although it was not capable of driving a boat with the speed that he had calculated it would, when he made his first application to the legislature?

In the biography of Fulton, I have said, that "Mr. Livingston, immediately after the passing "of this act, (i. e. the act of 1798,) built a boat "of about thirty tons burthen, which was propel"led by steam; but as she was incompetent to "fulfil the conditions of the law, she was aban"doned, and he, for a time, relinquished his pro"ject." You have referred to this passage to shew, that I have admitted that the Chancellor had abandoned his plan. But you pervert its obvious meaning. It contains no such admission. It simply states the fact, that the particular boat, the Chancellor had attempted to construct, was abandoned, because he found she was unequal to the performance required by the law. But his project he did not abandon; he relinquished it for a time. Indeed, it was his firm conviction, that his plan was capable of being advantageously applied, and his determination not to abandon it, that brought forward the genius of Fulton, and stimulated him to those exertions to which mankind owe so much.

The statute book itself affords an instance of the insufficiency of its evidence to prove the fact upon which you rely. Mr. Fulton's experiments in France, in 1802, had determined that he was then possessed of a mode of applying steam to propel a boat on new and advantageous principles. In 1803, the act was passed giving to him and Chancellor Livingston an exclusive right, provi

ded they employed within two years from the pašsing of the act, on the waters of this state, a boat whose progress should be equal to four miles an hour. The condition of this act was not fulfilled; and four years afterwards, that is, in 1807, another act was passed, allowing Messrs. Livingston and Fulton two years from that date to fulfil the conditions on which the right depended. Now, can any one doubt, that Mr. Fulton, in 1807, did possess a mode of propelling a boat, whose progress would satisfy the condition of the act? Yet if it had been referred to your committee to ascertain this fact, they might, upon the evidence of the statute book, and their own inferences, have reported, that he had abandoned his project, because he was incapable of fulfilling the condition.

But when the question is, what evidence the committee had before them to warrant their report, and not how the fact really was, it is curious that you should appeal to my admissions in the life of Fulton, which was not written until three years. after the appearance of the report. And with equal consistency, you refer to the affidavit of Stoudinger, which you say, was, subsequently, produced. But let me ask, at what time subsequently? Not till after the committee had reported, and when Mr. Fulton was heard before the two houses on their report. The committee reported, that the steam boats built by Livingston and Fulton, "were in substance the invention of John Fitch,

H

"patented to him in 1791"-" that the improvements and inventions of Daniel Dod were impor"tant and material," and that "Aaron Ogden "built his boat on the principles invented by the "said John Fitch, as improved by the said Dan"iel Dod."* I have averred, in the biography of Fulton, that the committee had no testimony before them as to the mode of propelling boats by steam, which the Chancellor possessed in 1798. And this, as I promised to do, I think I have proved, from your own book. You learned from the affidavit of Stoudinger, after the committee had reported, that the Chancellor had attempted to apply horizontal wheels. But when they made their report, I am convinced the committee did not know whether in 1798 the Chancellor had used chaplets, endless chains, duck's feet, or paddles, all of which he had tried previously to 1798, or whether he had attempted to propel his boat by vertical wheels. I feel the more confident that the committee had no such knowledge, because even now you do not pretend they had. You merely attempt to evade my allegation, by asserting that the statute book was sufficient evidence to warrant the report.

But I have also asserted, that the committee had no evidence before them to prove, that the boats built by Livingston and Fulton, were in substance the invention of Fitch; or to prove that Daniel Dod had made important and material improvements; or that Governor Ogden had built *See Report, Appendix to Duer's Letter, p. 103.

his boat on principles invented by Fitch, improved by Dod. That on these points the committee had no testimony before them; they asked for no testimony; they were content with the representations of the petitioner, and refused the most earnest solicitations to delay their report till Mr. Fulton, who was then in New-York, might be sent for, and might he heard before the committee as Governor Ogden had been.

I think you would not have questioned any of these allegations, had not so much time elapsed since the transactions, which you acknowledge may have obliterated from your memory the fact, that the committee was applied to for time to send for Mr. Fulton.

I have not the least doubt, but that I can bring to the mind of every one who was an auditor when Mr. Emmet and myself appeared before the committee, a recollection of our then having, in the most earnest manner, solicited time to send for Mr. Fulton.

Mr. Emmet and myself happened to be in this city when Governor Ogden made his application to the legislature. I then had no other connection with Mr. Livingston and Mr. Fulton's steam boat concerns, than what arose from having been employed as their counsel in the suits of Van Ingen and others, which had previously been settled. But the committee chose to recognise me as representing the interest of Messrs. Livingston