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 66 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 advantageous, by evidence of their successful operation " in practice."+ 66 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." 66 And although you have multiplied words,-transposed sentences, -rung new changes upon threadbare phrases,— and resumed your former experiments upon the common 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. 4 Letter to Colden, p. 59-66, and ibid. Appendix D. p. 90. Vide Colden's Vindication, pages 61 and 73. 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. 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."* 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. "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 you ultimately determine to rest your complaint. 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."+ 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 afforded 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. 66 the merits of a rival Patentee, which you relied upon his testimony to decide. When, therefore, you reiterated so frequently, that "it was upon these points that the Committee would not hear testimony," you should have taken, Sir, at least one opportunity of adding, that you meant the testimony of a party in his own favour;-and when you declared it "impossible, that any one could read my "book, without being satisfied, that we had no other "information than the representations of the Peti"tioners,"* you ought in candour to have added, that the inquiry was ex parte in its nature. If, when you presented yourself as the Counsel of Messrs. Livingston and Fulton, the Committee indulged you with a hearing, you should have remembered, that no counter memorial or remonstrance had been referred to them by the House, and that you did not think it necessary to present any on behalf of your clients, until after the Committee had reported on the memorial of Mr. Ogden, which last, in fact, was all, that had been properly before them. Whilst you admit, Sir, that the Committee heard "all the witnesses, that Mr. Ogden chose to call, "and read every document which he chose to pre"sent," you contend, that their " assertions betray "an entire want of information on the subjects to "which they relate ;"-and you undertake, "with "the little knowledge you possess of mechanics, "and with the assistance of my Book, to prove, that they knew nothing of the mechanism upon which "they expressed their unhesitating opinions."+ Colden's Vind. p. 74. +Ibid. p. 74. Colden's Vind. p. 75. |