Now, Sir, as no member of that Committee pretended to be so familiar as you are, either with the theory or practice of mechanics, as "their opinions "upon questions of a technical nature, were not "grounded on their own knowledge or experience, "but upon the facts before them,"* permit me once more to inquire, upon what else than the evidence adduced by the Petitioner could they have founded their Report? And was not that sufficient prima facie to support their statements, and warrant their opinions, in regard both to Fitch's Steam-Boat and Dod's improvement upon the engine? Your denial of these facts has given to them an importance which they may not intrinsically possess, and as it involves a grave imputation upon the conduct of the Committee, I think I shall be excused, for entering into that minute examination of the charge, and the grounds. upon which you attempt to support it, which may be.. necessary for its complete refutation.

And first, Sir, as to that part of your accusation which relates to the invention of Mr. Fitch. Amongst the facts set forth in the Report, it is stated, "that " in the month of December, 1787, John Fitch, with "great labour and perseverance, completed a Steam"Boat on the river Delaware, which worked against “both wind and tide, with a very considerable de66 gree of velocity, by the force of steam only;—and, "that on the 26th of August, 1791, after the adoption "of the Federal Constitution, the said John Fitch "procured a Patent from the United States, "for applying the force of steam to cranks and paddles,

66

* Vide Letter to Colden, p. 56.

"for propelling a boat or vessel through the water."* Upon these facts the Committee expressed their opinion," that the Steam-Boats built by Livingston and "Fulton, are in substance, the invention of John "Fitch, patented to him in 1791: That during the "term of his Patent, he had the exclusive right to "use the same in the United States; and, that after "the expiration of that term, the right to use them "became common to all the Citizens of the United "States."+

Now, without pretending to controvert the Statement of the Committee, you deny the correctness of their opinions, and as if I had not already explained myself upon the subject, you demand, very categorically, "what I mean by the boats of Messrs.

Livingston and Fulton being in substance the same "invention, which had previously been patented to "Fitch ?" In my Letter, Sir, I endeavoured to il lustrate my meaning, by an example, which Mr. Fulton's own explanation in regard to the Steam Engine, appositely afforded; and I flattered myself, that I had succeeded in convincing you, that as the substance of the latter invention consisted in the actual appropriation of steam as a mechanical power, although its expansive force had long been known, and this particular use of it before suggested,-so the discovery of Fitch "consisted substantially in the "application of the means by which the force of "steam is so appropriated to a particular purpose

dix K.

* Vide Report of Committee,-Letter to Colden, p. 99. AppenColden's Vind. p. 76.

† Ibid. p. 103.

ever may

"in mechanics," i. e. to propel a vessel ;* and whathave been the nature or success of the projects and experiments of Jonathan Hull and my Lord Stanhope in England,-of the Abbe Arnald and the Marquis De Jeffroy, in France, or of any other foreign savant to whom you are so solicitous to transfer the honour of this noble invention, rather than that any countryman of your own, except Mr. Fulton, should enjoy it,-the Committee thought it evident, that Mr. Fitch was the first person in this quarter of the globe, at least, who had successfully applied the Steam Engine to propel a vessel, and the first at all events, who had established a prima facie title to the discovery, by securing the right to its exclusive use under the Laws and Constitution of the United States.

From a comparison of Mr. Fitch's Patent, and the drawings annexed to it with the Patents and specifications of Mr. Fulton, it was manifest, as I have already had occasion to notice," that the most ma"terial difference between Fitch's boat and Fulton's, 76 was, that in the one cranks were applied to pad"dles suspended perpendicularly from an elevated "frame, and acting by an eliptical motion upon the "water, and in the other, to vertical wheels."t Upon this explanation you remark, that "if plans "differing so widely, be in substance the same, then "all Steam-Boats are in substance the same." But the very point to be determined, is, "how widely do they differ? And even if the difference which sume, were positively shewn, the consequence which

you as

* Vide Letter to Colden, p. 53. Colden's Vind. p. 76. + Ibid. p. 61.

you deduce from it would by no means follow:-for, notwithstanding the substance of the invention consists in the application of the Steam Engine to propel a vessel through the water; yet the question, whether the plan of one Steam-Boat be essentially the same with that of another, can only, as I apprehend, be resolved, by comparing the identical boats with each other. In some instances, the difference may be so great, as to leave no resemblance between two given boats, except the common principle of the use of steam as a primum mobile. In others, it may be so immaterial, as to consist merely in a variance of the position and arrangement of the machinery, or in the contrivance of some subordinate parts of it, which might be transposed or exchanged at pleasure, and transferred from the one boat to the other, without any other alteration in the plan of either. As neither the Steam Engines nor the Ship are new inventions, the material inquiry must always necessarily refer to the principle upon which the one operates to propel the other. The question, therefore, in this case, is, whether the respective boats of Mr. Fitch and of Mr. Fulton, differ essentially, as to the mode in which the power of the engine is communicated to that part of the machinery which takes the purchase upon the water?

Now, it is to be observed, that neither Mr. Fitch nor Mr. Fulton pretended to any greater merit of invention, with respect to the Steam Engine, than they did in regard to the boats used in ordinary navigation-for although the former states in his petition to the Secretary of State,* that," from the

* Vide Appendix A.

66

"want of requisite experience and aid, he had expended much time and vast sums of money in "bringing his engine to perfection;" yet his Patent is simply "for applying the force of steam to cranks "and paddles, for propelling a boat or vessel through "the water;"* and in Mr. Fulton's specification, it is expressly declared, that his "invention does not "extend to the engine;"† but, to the "proportioning, "combining, and applying it in such a manner, to a "boat or vessel of such dimensions, as to drive her to “a certainty, more than four miles an hour."‡

66

66

α

Neither does he consider the arrangement of the subordinate parts of the machinery, upon which you principally found his claims to invention, as of material importance. He observes, in his first specification, that these "are so familiar to all persons acquainted with the Steam Engine, and may be ar"ranged in such a variety of ways, as not to require a description:"§ And in his second, he describes four different modes in which the Steam Engine may be applied to cranks or crank wheels, and a rotary motion thus conveyed to vertical water wheels upon the sides of a vessel;-but the species of motion which Fitch derived from his engine, and communicated by the same means of cranks to that part of his machinery to which the paddles were affixed, was a rotary motion. The peculiar movement of

* Vide Append. B.

+ Vide Append. D.

By the second section of the " Act to promote the progress of "useful arts," passed Feb. 27th, 1793, it is declared," that simply "changing the forms or proportions of any machine or composition "of matter, in any degree, shall not be deemed a discovery." Vide Laws U. S. vol. 2.

p. 201.

$ Appendix C.