Steam engine they could procure; but from the circircumstances of the times, the want of pecuniary resources, and the low state of the mechanical arts in this country, at the period of Mr. Fitch's experi

"Mr. Vail further remarked, that he himself was not sufficient"ly acquainted with mechanical combinations, to know, whether ❝ or not the mechanism now intended to be used by Mr. Fulton, "was the same in principle with that formerly invented and used "by Mr. Fitch; but it might be the same for aught he knew: for "he had lent to Mr. Fulton, at Paris, all the specifications and draw"ings of Mr. Fitch, and they remained in his possession several "months; and doubtless, a man of Mr. Fulton's ingenuity, would "not fail to profit by any new and useful combination of the me"chanical powers, that he might then discover, especially as he "might suppose, no one living would convict him of the plagiar"ism." The following letter from a gentleman of high respectability, in this State, serves still further to confirm the above ac

counts.

"DEAR SIR,

"Troy, November 17th, 1818.

"I yesterday saw James Vail, at present of Lansingburgh; he "resided with his uncle Aaron Vail, at L'Orient, at the time Chan"cellor Livingston arrived in France ;-he distinctly recollects "seeing, and often examining in the hands of his uncle, Fitch's "papers and designs respecting his Steam-Boat, and has frequent"ly heard the Chancellor and his uncle conversing on the subject "of the Steam-Boat, but does not recollect having seen those "papers and designs delivered to the Chancellor, though he has "no doubt, they were shewn to him. Vail is an intelligent young "man, and possibly may, on reflection, recollect circumstan❝ces, that are material in your present inquiries ;—should this be "the case, or should you wish any certificate from him, and my "services in this or any other business, be of use to you here, you "will oblige me by commanding them.

"I am, very respectfully,

"Your ob't. servant,

"JNO. D. DICKINSON.

"WILLIAM A. DUER, ESQ."

ments, he was compelled to resort, for his engine, to' plans and descriptions which he found in books, and then to rely on the imperfect production of his own labour. Whilst Mr. Fulton was enabled to command every modern improvement, and to import from the work-shops of the inventor, the most complete machinery that was known in Europe. If, therefore, he excelled his less fortunate, but not less ingenious, predecessor, it is to be ascribed to the gigantic agency of his primum mobile, rather than to the superiority of that subordinate part of his machinery, in which alone he differed from him-not in the principle, but simply in the mode of operation.

You contend, however, that if there were this identity between the plans of Mr. Fitch and Mr. Fulton," then wheels and paddles are, in substance, "the same."* But when it is affirmed merely that those plans are the same in principle, nothing can be more fallacious, Sir, than to assume that their entire and complete identity is maintained, and then proceed to refute that gratuitous assumption, by proving a variance between the two plans, in that very unessential particular in which their difference had been admitted to consist. To have met my argument, it was certainly not necessary to establish, by a formidable train of reasoning, that wheels and paddles are not the same thing; but you should have shewn that the superiority of the one to the other depended upon a difference in the principle upon which they were applied, as instruments to propel a vessel, and such as to render two Steam boats, in which

* Colden's Vindication, p. 77.

they were respectively used, essentially different inventions. That no such distinction as this exists, is, I think, capable of demonstration, notwithstanding you, Sir, suppose it "not difficult to point out at "least one substantial difference between" these two species of propellers.

On this point you contend, in the first place, "that the paddles must move with much more than "twice the velocity of the Boat, because half its "motion is lost in recovering its motion, after hav"ing made its stroke."* But pray, tell me, how much of the motion of a bucket or paddle of a wheel is lost in recovering its position? Instead of half, certainly not less than three-fourths; for it must make not only a retrograde movement proportioned to the diameter of the wheel, but perform a revolulution equal to its circumference. The quantity, then, of inefficient motion, would, according to your own argument, be much greater in the bucket of a revolving wheel, than in a paddle fixed at some point of its length, or at one of its extremities, to a centre, and describing, at the other end, the segment of an elipse.

ces.

The relative velocities of the bucket of a wheel, of a paddle, and of the boat itself, are, however, dependent on other and entirely different circumstanMr. Fulton, in his first specification, has stated (whether correctly or not, it is not now necessary to inquire) that the buckets of a wheel must move with twice the velocity of the boat; and assuming this position as a fixed principle, he makes it the basis of a variety of calculations. But what, Sir, is your

*Colden's Vindication, p. 77.

doctrine upon the subject? Why, that if the buc "ket of a wheel be justly proportioned so as not to "drive the water, the progress of the boat will be "exactly equal to the motion of that part of the wheel "which moves on the surface of the water." That the resistances of the buckets and of the boat to the water, may be so "proportioned" as that "the pro66 gress of the boat will be exactly equal to the mo"tion of that part of the wheel which moves on the "surface of the water," is readily admitted. But surely, Sir, you cannot mean that such proportionate velocities are the most efficient-that this singularly curious and arbitrary position is to be adopted as a formula that cannot be deviated from in practice, without a loss of power;-to say nothing of its direct opposition to the principle assumed by Mr. Fulton.

If the water cannot, as you observe, "afford an "immoveable fulcrum," I would ask, how "the "buckets of the wheel" can be proportioned so as not to drive the water? And yet," in this respect," you say," the wheel and the paddle lose equally."— Which is, in fact, admitting, in the teeth of your former assertion, that both actually do drive the water.

"But," it seems, "the loss of the retrograde mo❝tion is peculiar to the paddle :"-Who does not at once see that each bucket of the vertical wheel after leaving the water, must make a retrograde, and, at the same time, a circular movement, before it can again enter it? And who, therefore, will refuse to acknowledge that the efficient motion of a paddle moving in an elipse, of which the shortest diameter is perpendicular to the horizon, is, of course, less than that of the bucket of a water wheel?

As an inevitable consequence of the loss sustained by reason of the retrograde motion, you make this assertion, that "the paddle to drive the boat "twelve miles an hour, must move more than twen❝ty-four miles an hour."* The fallacy, however, of such a deduction is obvious, for in order to render your reasoning conclusive, it requires no more than common sense and common observation, to discover that the boat ought to come to a full stop at every retrogradation of the paddle; or else it must be denied that the propelling instrument participates in the effect of the motion which it communicates to the vessel, or accompanies her in her progress.

There is nothing, therefore, in the retrograde movement, either of the paddle, or of the buckets of a water wheel, by which a substantial difference between them can be shewn. That a material preference may exist in favour of a wheel with many buckets in comparison with a single paddle, will not indeed be questioned; for it is evident that the buckets of a wheel must follow each other in quicker succession than the strokes of a single paddle can possibly be reiterated: in each revolution ofthe wheel ten or twelve buckets are made to act on the water; whereas a single paddle can make only a single stroke at each revolution of the crank. But what justice or consistency is there in comparing the action of an entire wheel, having many buckets, with that of a single paddle? Each separate bucket of the wheel may be so compared; but I have already shewn that each bucket

* Colden's Vindication, p. 49.