perhaps necessary that I should answer you as to what testimony the claim set up in favour of Mr. Dod, was supported. And here, Sir, I cannot forbear, in my turn, expressing some surprise that you should put the question ;-nor refrain from observing that your recollection must be singularly defective, if you really suppose the Committee to have framed their statements, and pronounced their opinions, "without any other evidence than Governor Og"den's assertion."* You know, that they had before them the Patent granted to Dod, with its specification, which was at least prima facie evidence of the originality of his improvements;-you know that they had his own affidavit, denying that he had ever seen the specification of Mr. Fulton;-you know that his testimony was corroborated upon other points by the affidavit of the carpenter employed by Mr. Ogden to build his Steam boat. And you know, perhaps, that this was competent proof;— at all events, you must remember, that nothing was produced afterwards upon the hearing before the house, to contradict or discredit it.

I shall now revert to that circumstance in the history of this transaction, which seems to have given you the most uneasiness;-which is regarded as the climax of your injuries, and constitutes the gravamen of that accusation against the Committee, which you have urged with the most pertinacious, if not with the most discreet and commendable zeal,their refusal to allow time for Mr. Fulton to be sent for from New-York,-that he might explain to them the merits of the new and advantageous mode of

*Colden's Vind. p. 80.

propelling boats by Steam, which Mr. Livingston possesssed in 1798 and abandoned in 1803; that he might shew by his own testimony, that his boats were not in substance the invention of John Fitch; and demonstrate, that the improvements on the Steam Engine, by his competitor Daniel Dod, were not important and material, or if so, that they were not original.

Were the minute and circumstantial detail of the proceedings of the Committee, upon which you enter to support your charge of partiality, admitted to be unimpeachable in every particular, it would still be little to the purpose; but if I have it in my power, Sir, to shew you conclusively, from written documents, that you are mistaken in some of the most important circumstances of your story, I am induced to believe, that even your own confidence in the correctness of statements depending altogether upon the fidelity of your recollection, will be seriously impaired, if not utterly destroyed. The lapse of time has undoubtedly obliterated many subordinate occurrences from my memory as well as from yours; and although, when I last addressed you, I was unable to recal to mind any application whatever to the Committee for delay,-I have satisfied myself, since the appearance of your "Vindication," not only, that you asked for a postponement, but, that my conjecture as to the grounds of its refusal, was correct :-for, suffer me to remind you, that I did not pretend to deny, positively, that such application had been made; but remarked, that in case it had, "the Committee might have thought it useless and

improper, to defer the commencement of their in"quiries, until Mr. Fulton could be sent for."*

The memorial of Mr. Ogden was presented, as you have truly stated, on the 25th of February; and although you may not have received notice of the time and place of the meeting of the Committee, until the day following,-yet, you will not, I am confident, deny, that within a few hours after the Petition was referred, you were apprised of the willingness, of at least one of the Committee, "to recognize you as "representing the interests of Messrs. Livingston "and Fulton." If you "then had no other connec"tion with their Steam-Boat concerns, than what "arose from having been employed as their Counsel "in the case of Van Ingen and others,"-still, as a stockholder of the "Fulton Steam-Boat Company," you may well have been considered as having a general interest in the questions to be discussed before the Committee;-in either capacity, however, you were assured of their disposition to hear any thing you might have to offer in opposition to Mr. Ogden. You accordingly attended the Committee, accompanied by Mr. Emmet, as your associate Counsel, and neither of you complained of the shortness of the notice, nor asked for a postponement, until after you had heard the opening speech and the testimony of the Petitioner. Your own statement shews, Sir, that

you did not.t

in

your

After the Memorialist had concluded, you, turn, "addressed the Committee." It is possible, "related the circumstances under which Mr. Emmet and yourself appeared before them;"

that you

* Letter to Colden, p. 47, 48.

+ Vide Colden's Vind. p. 63.

66

and it is extremely probable, that you convinced them" that as to many of the points discussed by "Governor Ogden, you had no knowledge what" ever." You may, perhaps, have urged the necessity of Mr. Fulton's presence, and alleged the probability of his being in Albany in ten days, in the very terms you have recollected with such wonderful precision. But, surely, Sir, your "whole address to the "Committee was not to reason with them upon this point?"* The strong impression upon my mind, I must confess, (and the more I reflect and inquire, the more am I confirmed in the accuracy of that impression,) ever was, and ever will be,-that upon the occasion alluded to, you favoured the Committee with your views as to the construction of the several acts, granting and protecting the exclusive right:-that you gave an entire new exposition of these Statutes, and contrasted them with the Patent laws of Congress-that you referred to and commented at large upon the case in the Court of Errors, and applied it to the case before the Committee, as an authority in point;-in short, that the greater part of your speech was meant as an answer to at least a portion of Mr. Ogden's argument.

Whether your memory or mine be most to be relied on, is, perhaps, not very important to determine, as I am not disposed to question your correctness upon a point, which, I presume, you have considered the most material. I agree, that you "con"cluded your address with the most earnest en"treaties, that the Committee would not make up "their Report, until they had heard Mr. Fulton, as

* Vide Colden's Vindication, p. 63.

they had done Mr. Ogden."* But I cannot admit, what you leave to be inferred from your statement,"that the Committee returned no answer whatever "to your solicitations for delay." Here, Sir, your memory seems suddenly to have failed you,--and I regret, that I am obliged to rely principally upon the accuracy of my own, to supply the hiatus valdé deflendus of your narrative.

You were told, Sir, in substance, (for I cannot, at this late day, affect to be precise in the recollection of unimportant particulars,) that, notwithstanding the Committee had been willing to hear any thing you might think proper to offer, as the Counsel of those whose interests might be affected be a recommendation in favour of the Memorialist;-yet, that the inquiry before them was strictly an ex parte proceeding, and, that they did not, therefore, feel themselves at liberty to suspend an investigation already commenced,-when no remonstrance against granting the prayer of the Petitioner had been presented to the House, and referred to their consideration;but that there would be ample time for presenting such remonstrance, as well as for further examination, if that should be thought necessary, before the Committee could make up their Report. In this, all parties seemed to acquiesce, and the inquiry proceeded the next evening,—when Mr. Emmet addressed to the Committee no solicitations for delay, nor "earnest intreaties" to await Mr. Fulton's arrival, however deeply he might have lamented that gentleman's absence;--but, an eloquent,-an ingenious,an elaborate, and impassioned speech, in opposi

*Colden's Vindication, p. 74.