not have denied that his principles were, in truth, "advantageous.” With respect to the other testimony upon this point, to which I adverted in my Letter, you observe that it is "curious," that " when the question "was, whether the Committee had before them evi"dence to warrant their Report, I should have ap"pealed to your "LIFE OF FULTON," which was not "written till afterwards." And you think it "equal"ly inconsistent in me to refer to Stoudinger's Affi"davit, because it was produced, as I had myself "mentioned, subsequently Why, really, Sir, to whatsoever degree these circumstances may have excited your "wonder," I see no reason why you should convert them into proofs of my inconsistency. By referring once more to my Letter, you will perceive that I there took the liberty of asking you, whether the Committee "had not the "benefit of admissions for yourself, as the Counsel of “Mr. Fulton, which you had since repeated as his Biographer." To this enquiry you do not deign to answer; but to prevent, I presume, the charge of inconsistency from being retorted, you attempt to evade the question. 66 Before the Committee, Sir, it was not pretended that Mr. Livingston had succeeded in his own plan; nor did you think proper then to say, what you have since found it expedient to admit, that Mr. * Colden's Vindication, p. 59. I am also accused of having "perverted the obvious meaning" of the passages in which Mr. Colden's admissions are contained; but by referring to my Letter, p. 60, 61, and the "Life of Fulton," 146-7, it will be found that I confined myself to a literal quotation of his own words. t Letter to Colden, p. 60. And Livingston had abandoned his particular project when he connected himself with Mr. Fulton. you have even conceded that it was upon the success of Mr. Fulton's experiment, that the certificate of compliance with the test imposed by the Legislature, had been eventually obtained. Your subsequent admission, and the Affidavit of Stoudinger, were not, assuredly, referred to by me as part of the testimony submitted to the Committee, but to corroborate their decision, and expose your injustice, by an appeal to evidence which you had yourself afforded, and to opinions which you had yourself expressed. The "real fact, that Mr. Livingston, upon the fail"ure of his first experiment, relinquished his project "for a time," was then almost as notorious as it has since been rendered by a work of so much celebrity as the "Biography of Fulton:"-And it was then equally apparent, that if he had not abandoned all hope of its success, he never had, in practice, at least resumed it. But the great burden of your complaint, and the charge which you seem to consider the gravest and most important, is, that the Committee proceeded in their investigation without having "testimony before "them, as to this mode of propelling boats by steam, "which the Chancellor possessed in 1798:" and you "feel the more confident, that when they made their "Report, they had no particular knowledge of it;" because I did not pretend in my Letter that they had.* No, Sir, I did not, indeed ;-nor shall I ever pretend, that such information could have been of the least use or importance. "Whether in 1798, * Vide Colden's Vindication, p. 60. "the Chancellor had used chaplets, endless chains, "duck's-feet, or paddles,-horizontal, or vertical "wheels, or-all of them," was totally immaterial. It was enough for the Committee to know, that his plan had failed;-neither did I" attempt to evade your "allegation;"-I met it fairly, by asserting, that the Statute Book was sufficient evidence to warrant their Report.* For the preamble to the act of 1798, recites in the words of a Petition presented on Mr. Livingston's behalf, that " he had not been able to "comply with the conditions of the preceding act, "which rendered it obligatory upon him to prove, " within one year, that the principles upon which he "had proposed to construct his boat were advan"tageous, by evidence of their successful operation " in practice."+ You assert, moreover, that "the Committee had "no evidence before them, which authorised them "to report, 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 his boat on principles invented "by Fitch and improved by Dod." And although you have multiplied words,-transposed sentences, -rung new changes upon threadbare phrases,and resumed your former experiments upon the com mon sense and patience of your readers,-you have advanced neither argument nor evidence to support this charge. From the various forms, indeed, in * Colden's Vindication p. 60. Letter to Colden, p. 59-66, and ibid. Appendix D. p. 90,- 45 which you have urged it, and from the contradictory terms in which you have expressed yourself in relation to it,―from its first promulgation in your "Life 66 of Fulton," to the last version of it in your Pamphlet,-I find it difficult to ascertain, with any degree of precision, what it is that I am called upon to answer. 66 In your Memoir, you refer the accusation to that part of the Report, which stated, that "the recitals. "of the act of 1798, were untrue.' 99** You there say, expressly, that "on this point the Committee had no tes"timony before them."+ All, therefore, that I thought necessary for your refutation, was, to specify in my Letter, the evidence by which it was satisfactorily shewn to the Committee,-first, that Mr. Livingston was not the "possessor of a mode of propelling boats by steam, upon new and advantageous principles." And secondly, that Mr. Fitch had" within the space "of ten years, made an attempt to execute his plan "for a Steam-Boat." But in your "Vindication," you declare, that you "never said, that the Commit"tee did not ask for testimony to prove what Fitch's "boat was, and how she performed." The charge is diverted from its original foundation to the particulars just enumerated from your Pamphlet ;-and although you now aver, that "these are the points on "which the Committee did not ask for testimony,"S yet," as to" two of them, "Governor Ogden's boat "and Daniel Dod's improvement," you call upon your God to witness, that "you never complained "of the Committee not being eager enough to hear * Life of Fulton, p. 242. + Ibid. p. 243. Colden's Vind. p. 73. § Ibid. p. 71. "it."* Leaving it to you, Sir, to harmonize these various readings, and to reconcile that solemn appeal to received notions of propriety,—I shall proceed to examine the grounds upon which mately determine to rest your complaint. you ulti It seems, then, from your latest explanation, that you did complain, and that you do yet complain, "that the Committee would not wait until Mr. Ful"ton could be sent for, who, they were told, would "be able to give them every information concerning "the Chancellor's boat ;-who would be able to shew, "how far his plan differed from Fitch's, and how far "the boats then established differed from all others, "that had previously been established ;-whose testimony would enable them to determine, whether "what Dod claimed as an invention, had not been "used before;-and if not, whether it was material " or important."† 46 With what justice you persevere in censuring the Committee, for refusing to suspend their proceedings, until Mr. Fulton should appear before them, I shall hereafter have occasion to examine. At present, I shall merely observe, that if any information with respect to the project which Mr. Livingston had so long before abandoned in despair, could possibly have been deemed material, it is clear, that Mr. Fulton, who had been absent from the country at the time of the Chancellor's experiments, could not have af forded it; and, even if he were the only person who possessed any knowledge of that abortive plan, it is equally clear, that he was not admissible as a witness, either upon this or upon any other point, relative to + Ibid. p. 74. *Colden's Vindication, p. 74. |