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

66

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."

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 "exhibiting 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."

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. Livingston, 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;

66

lic accommodation as well as for his private benefit, incurred great expenses in improvements, from which he had as yet derived no emolument, and which, of course, would be totally lost, unless he could obtain the fee simple of the soil. Suppose, Sir, it should afterwards be shewn, that the Land thus granted, had been previously disposed of, or reserved by the State for a particular purpose ;-in other words, suppose the suggestions upon which the grant in question was procured, "not true in fact," would you in that case contend, that those suggestions, though not "fraudulently" made, had not been " deceptive" in their effect, and injurious to the Public?" And, that the grant could not consistently, with a due observance of the public faith be rescinded, if these facts were found in some due course of Law ?" If you were not so "much embarrassed by necessary "attention to other duties," as to deprive you of time and opportunity for reflection,-if your interests were not involved in the decision of these questions, or your passions inflamed by their agitation,-I am convinced, that even you, Sir, would never hazard the absurdity of answering them in the negative;-and yet the case I have last supposed, is strictly analogous in all its material circumstances, to that which we are considering.

Professing, afterwards, to proceed to the consideration of that part of the Report of the Committee, "in "the sense in which they intended it should be under"stood," you are "led," as you express it, "into a "full discussion of the objection to the exclusive right, that the first act," (meaning the act of 1798)

66

* Colden's Vind. p. 14.

" was passed on untrue suggestions;" but you immediately find it necessary to misrepresent the grounds and reasons of that objection, more grossly than before. You now make the Committee say, that "the "suggestions were not true in fact; because though "the Chancellor might have been the possessor of "a mode of applying a steam engine to propel a "boat; yet his representation was false in fact, in"asmuch as his mode could not have been new and "advantageous, John Fitch having made a success"ful attempt for executing his plan of a Steam-boat, " and having actually obtained a Patent therefor."*

This is really admirable !—I cannot certainly, deny that the reasoning here imputed to the Committee is abundantly absurd, and the conclusion which they are stated to have drawn, a non sequitur, glaring and almost ridiculous. To shew this reasoning to be weak and inconclusive, I beg leave to offer an additional illustration, which as it aids and completes your argument, your gratitude will doubtless adopt, and insert, with a suitable acknowledgment, in the next edition of your pamphlet. Suppose some enemy, jealous of your reputation and success, should make the rash assertion, that you did not gain the lucrative and important station which you now "possess" by "a new and advantageous" course of conduct; because the same office was bestowed as the reward of " adhesion," upon the former incumbent. How silly would such a process of reasoning appear How easy would it be to vindicate your originality by the most triumphant arguments? As Mr. Fitch and the Chancellor had a common object

*Colden's Vindication, p. 49.