come forfeited by non-user, he could not avail himself of that circumstance in his defence?

If he had remained unsatisfied, and had still pressed his application to the Legislature, I should have ventured to remind him, that the power of "granting " and securing the exclusive right to new inventions "and discoveries," had, since the grant to Fitch, been transferred by the Federal Constitution to the Government of the Union. If he claimed any right, derived from the supreme authority of that Government, and entertained well founded apprehensions of being interrupted in its enjoyment, by those who claimed under a State grant, I should then have acquiesced in a Legislative declaration of the paramount nature of his privileges, so far as to exempt, them from the operation of the cumulative remedies given by Statute, to protect the rights granted by the State :-and if he insisted, that those remedies were incompatible with rights secured by the Constitution to every Citizen, as his natural birth right and inheritance, I should have promised him my feeble aid to procure the abrogation of such forfeitures and penalties, and to admit him upon equal terms to substantiate or defend his claims in the Courts of Justice.

But to obviate the force of that answer to your stated case, which you must have anticipated,-you next argue upon the supposition, that "there was injus"tice in repealing Fitch's Law, and in conferring on "Chancellor Livingston, the privileges which had "been previously granted to another,"-but you contend, "that the injustice being towards Fitch or his "representatives, no other person had a right to

66

complain."* You admit, indeed, that " if the Law "in favour of Chancellor Livingston, interfered with "the prior grant, the prior grantee or his representa"tives, might, with great propriety maintain, that "the subsequent grant, so far as it had deprived them of any advantage, was unjust."

46

Now, where, and when, or to what purpose, Sir, were they to maintain that objection, if not before the Legislature, at the time of the meditated interference with their grant, and to the end, that they might prevent such interference? It seems, that you would rather have wished them patiently to have submitted to injustice, and then have trusted to time and chance, or the favour of a succeeding Legislature, to replace them in possession of their rights, in opposition to the powerful influence of Mr. Livingston and his connections: for you pretend, that "to authorize Mr. Fitch or his representatives to "make this complaint, they must have shewn, that "he or they attempted, or at least intended to avail "themselves, of the exclusive privileges conferred "by the act under which they claimed." Thus, throwing upon them the burden of proof, in regard to that omission or neglect, which, according to your own notions, was to have operated a forfeiture against them.

But, were this even incumbent upon the representatives of Mr. Fitch, what opportunity was allowed to them to shew their intention of availing themselves of their grant, before they were deprived of it? It is not pretended, that they had notice of Mr. Livingston's application to the Legislature, and the

* Colden's Vind. p. 41.

objection of the Council of Revision to the repeal of Fitch's Law, for want of" proof of the facts upon which the alleged forfeiture was said to have arisen, remains to this day unanswered.

You remark, however, with no little self gratulation and complacency, that "Governor Ogden un"derstood himself too well, not to foresee, that no "one but Fitch or his representatives, could com"plain of the repeal; and, that in order to meet the "objection, he procured from an administrator, "created for that special purpose, an assignment of "all Fitch's right to employ his steam boat on the "waters of this State, or elsewhere, for the con"sideration of TEN DOLLARS." Whether you have correctly represented the circumstances under which Mr. Ogden obtained that assignment, is a matter in which I have no interest or concern. It is an affair, indeed, which like some others, has probably been settled amicably between you; and although your sagacity may, for aught I know, have detected, and your lurking resentment have exposed, his motives for the production of the document in question. The Committee, in their report, barely state the fact of its having been exhibited before them. They deduce no legal consequence from its existence, nor found one of their recommendations upon it;-on the contrary, they rather intimate an opinion adverse to its efficacy; for, they say expressly, "that "after the expiration of Fitch's Patent, the right to "use his invention, became common to all the Citizens of the United States."

66

But, if Mr. Ogden really meant to avail himself of his "technical right," with the intent of combatting

your objection, he seems to me to have chosen a fit weapon for that purpose ;-and, considering, that at the time he thus "armed himself," Fitch's Patent had expired,—that the privilege granted to him by this State, had been transferred to Mr. Livingston,and the Courts of Justice shut against an inquiry into the validity of that transfer,-I am inclined to think, that ten dollars were the full value of Mr. Ogden's purchase.

66

Be this as it may, it can have no bearing upon the question; nor do I conceive that to be varied by your suggestion, that Fitch or his representatives might, at a period long subsequent to the abrogation of their privileges, have had the opportunity of " ex"hibiting their claims." The very circumstances of the repeal, may have compelled them to forego the "intention of executing his plan;" and even if it were true, that " no one has suffered injury by such repeal," it would by no means follow, that " there "was no injustice in the act."* In all such cases, the wrong and the injury are one and the same. The community has a right to complain of faithlessness in the Government. The State as well as the individual is interested, that the public engagements be inviolably performed, and the public integrity most scrupulously preserved :---And although your moral sense may discriminate, the absolute revocation of Fitch's privileges, without notice, investigation, or inquiry, from a similar interposition of Legislative authority in regard to your own rights, I must confess, Sir, I can perceive no distinction between them. In both cases, the character of the repeal must neces

* Letter to Colden, p. 88. Appendix B.

sarily be the same, and the arbitrary resumption by the Legislature of its own grant, an equal violation of its faith.

III. But the point which you labour with most assiduity to establish, and upon which my opinions are misrepresented with the most persevering exertions of malignant ingenuity, is the "VALIDITY" of the grant to Mr. Livingston, under the Act of March, 1798, notwithstanding the suggestions upon which it passed, were "not true in fact.

Now these suggestions, as appears by the preamble to the act, were distinctly two. 1st. That Mr. Livingston was "possessor of a mode of applying "the Steam Engine to propel a boat, on new and advan"tageous principles, which he was deterred from "carrying into effect by the existence of the act in "favour of Fitch," &c. 2d. That Fitch was " either "dead or had withdrawn himself from this State, "without having made any attempt in the space of more "than ten years, for executing the plan, for which he so "claimed an exclusive privilege, whereby the same was "justly forfeited."

66

In reference to this part of the subject, the Committee, after setting forth in their Report to the House, the substance of the various Statutes passed for the benefit both of Mr. Fitch and of Mr. Living ́ston, and his different associates; and stating, as had appeared in evidence before them, "that Mr. Fitch had, with great labour and perseverance, completed a Steam-Boat on the river Delaware, which "worked against both wind and tide with a very "considerable velocity, by the force of Steam only;