CHAPTER XV.
CONTROVERSY WITH RUMSEY.
The first pamphlet of Rumsey was published in Berekely Countv, Virginia. It is in the library of the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, No. 276, PAMPHLETS No. 38. The date of the signature to the Berkely steamboat pamphlet is Jan. 1, 1788: the reprint was probably issued sometime in April. We shalt not follow the order observed in presenting the statements of that publication, but give them according to their chronological sequence: George Rootes, Clulrle Orrick, and Michael Bedinger certified that in 1784 James Rumsey informed them that he was projecting a boat to work by steam. Bedinger stated that his information was received in or before the month of March 1784, and that he had spoken about it freely when in Kentucky, in that year, and an inference was suggested that Fitch first heard of it there. This insinuation may as well be disposed of at once by reference to the facts heretofore presented, which show that the latter was not in Kentucky after the spring of 1781. It is possible that he might have heard of Be(Bellinger s stories whilst surveying in the north-western territory in 1784 and the early part of 1785, but as he was not among the settlements and was at considerable) distance from Kentucky, this probability is a
weak one. Beside this, Fitch utterly denied ever having
heard of a steam-boat, or even of a steam engine, before he conceived the idea in April, 178
Charles Morrow, a brother-in-law of James Rumsey, and partner
in the boat, declared that the latter told him, in the beginning
of 1785, that he intended to build a steamboat The same Morrow
made affidavit that in the summer of 1785 Rumsey had a boat built
near the town of Bath, which was brought down the Potomac to Shepherdstown
in the fall That shorter afterward Joseph Barnes another brother-inlaw,
afterwards Rumsey's agent, was sent to Baltimore to have some
machinery cast, and that on his return he was sent to Fredericktown
in order to have some other things made according to Mr Rumsey's
direction; that he returned about the middle of November, and
that he (Morrow) then saw the machinery, to wit, a boiler, two
cylinders, pumps, pipes, etc; that about the first of December
the boat was ready for experiment, but the ice coming on prevented
a trial during that winter. During that winter Rumsey told him
that he had invented several improvements; in particular, a newly
constructed boiler Smiths were set to work at it, but when it
was ready to be put together, the workmanship was so badly executed
that the machinery would not answer the purpose It was therefore
determined to try the experiment with the old boiler In the spring
of 1786 the machinery was put in the boat, and the first trial
made, Morrow being on board The boat then went against the current
until the steam escaped by the then imperfectness of the machine
An experiment was afterward made with the new boiler, but the
heat of the steam dissolved the soft solder. Hard
solder was then applied, and in July, 1787, the new boiler was ready to work Morrow also declared that he conceived at the time of his affidavit (Dec. 8, 1787), that the boat was near completion
Joseph Barnes, who was employ employed by Rumsey to superintend
the manufacture of the machinery, declared that he was engaged
for that service in May, 1785. 'The boat was first built, and
Rumsey told him it was to go by steam He confirmed what Morrow
had said relative to his journeys to Baltimore and Fredericktown
to get the machinery made, the interference of the ice, the Construction
of the new boiler, and the employment of the old boiler again.
With the latter a trial -was made April, 1786, and the boat went
against tile current of the Potomac, but many parts being rendered
useless, the experiment was then given over. after repairs, another
effort was made, but it failed, " then it made many powerful
strokes, and sent the boat forward with such power that one man
was unable to hold her " In December the new constructed
boiler was used, but the soft solder melted In the spring of I787
the boat was repaired, and ready for trial in September when the
boat moved up the river against current, with about two tons
on board besides the machinery at the rate of two miles per hour,
but the Joints opened and let great quantities of steam escape.
At the trial Dec. 3d., the machine was still imperfect ill many
parts. Barnes was of opinion that the new constructed boiler
was " the greatest thing of that kind, as it did not hold
more than twenty pints," and in his. opinion " would
make more steam than a Five hundred gallon boiler in the common
way " Its weight
was about seven hundred pounds, and it did not occupy "more space than four flour barrels."
Ex-Governor Thomas Johnson, of Maryland the same who gave Fitch the letter to Gov. Smallwood, dated Nov 25th, 1785 (see page 144), stated that Rumsey had told him in October or November, 1785, that he relied on steam for his first poaver, and wished him (Gov J ) to promote his having cylinders cast at the works of Governor Johnson and Brother. This undertaking (the casting of the cylinders) did not then succeed. Gov J considered himself "under an obligation of secrecy till in the progress of making copper cylinders in Federicktown some time afterward"-he found that " the designed purpose of the cylinder was a subject of pretty general conversation "
Rumsey also quoted an extract from a letter to General Washington,
which he averred he wrote March 10th, 1785, in which, after speaking
of the pole-boat, he proceeded to say,
" I have taken the greatest pains to perfect another kind of a boat, upon the principles I mentioned to you at Richmond in November last L1 1784 and have the pleasure to inform you that l have brought it great perfection. It is true, it will cost something more than the other way, but when in use it will be more manageable, and can be worked with a few hands. The power is immense, and I have quite convinced myself that boats of passage may be made to go against the current of the Mississippi or Ohio rivers, or in the Gulf Stream (from the Leeward to the Wineward islands), from sixty to one hundred miles per day. I know this will appear strange and unfathomable to many persons, yet I am very certain it may be performed; besides, it is simple (when understood, and is ALSO strictly philosophical.
The principle of this boat I am very cautious not to explain,
as it would be easily executed by an ingenious person. The
,plan I mean to pursue is to put both the machines on board of
boats built on a large scale, and then, sir, if you would be
kind enough to see them make actual performances, I should not
doubt but that the Assemblies would allow me something handsome,
which should be the more advantageouus to the public than to give
me the exclusive right of using them.
To this letter it is averred that General Washington mails this
reply:
It gives me much pleasure to find by your letter that you are
not less sanguine in your boat project than when I saw you in
Richmond; and that you have made such further discoveries as will
render them more extensively useful than was at first expected.
You have my best wishes for the success of your plan.
Major-General Horatio Gates, Rev Robert Stubbs, teacher of the Academy in Sheperdstown, Abraham Shepherds William Brice, David Gray, John Morrow, Henry Bedinger, Thomas White and Charles Morrow certify(l that they saw Rumsey's boat move against the current of the Potomac on the 3d of December, 1787, with two tons on board, exclusive of the machinery, at the rate of three miles an hour, by the force of steam, without any external application whatever
Moses Hage, Cornelius Wynkoop, John Mark, Benoni Swearingen, John
Morrow, Joseph Swearingen, Charles Morrow, Thomas White, Robert
Stubbs, Abraham Shepherd, and Henry Bedinger testified that
they saw the boat moved by steam, December 11,
1787, against the stream, at the rate of four miles an hour.
William Askew testified that he was in Philadelpia in September,
1787, and saw Fitch's boat, and was of Pinion that the opinion
that the boiler would hold five hundred gallons of Water; that
the machinery would weigh seven tons,
and would cost L300 to construct it On the contrary, Rumsey's steam machinery would not weigh more than eight hundred pounds, would not require more than four bushels of coal in twelve hours, and would require " no more water at one time than one pint, or perhaps not so much, to keep the machinery in sufficient motion to stem the stream of a river sufficiently fast to be safe with a cargo of goods;" and that his machinery might be made for £20.
Henry Bedinger, who had also seen Fitch's boat, certified that,
according to his opinion, Rumsey's plan was eligible, simple,
and practicable; whilst Fitch's machinery appeared to be "
bulky, weighty, and complicated " Fitch's engine and apparatus,
he supposed,
weighed five tons, whilst Rumsey's weighed but five hundred pounds.
Before noticing " the Original steamboat supported,"
let us again present a few dates, previously given in this biography,
in order to make the important question of time more easily understood:
1,85. April, John. Fitch conceived the idea of a steamboat.
Aug. 20, Letter in favour of his scheme by Dr. John Ewing.
25, Letter in favour of his scheme by Wm. C. Houston.
27, Letter in favour of his scheme by Samuel Smith.
29, Petition of Fitch presented to Congress.
Sept. ¡27, Draving of the boat, models, and tube boiler presented to the American Philosophical Society by John Fitch.
Dec. 2, Dr. Franklin lays before the Am. Philos. Society a paper on maritime affairs, suggesting an improvement on Bernouilli s plan of propelling a boat by sucking in and voiding water.
Nov., Application made by Fitch to the legislature of Virginia for encouragement.
16, Bond executed to Gov. Patrick Henry conditioned for the sale of maps, to raise funds to build a steamboat.
25, Ex-Gov. Thomas Johnson gives John. Fitch a letter of recommendation to Gov. Smallwood, of Maryland, in favour of his application for a law to give him encouragement in the building of his steamboat.
Dec., Petition presented to the Assembly of Pennsylvania
for assistance. Committee reported favorably, but no action taken.
1785. Dec. 20, Advertisement for aid to build the steamboat
Maryland Gazette.
1786. Jan. 6, Petition presented to the Assembly of Maryland, and
19, Report favorable to the invention made, but assistance declined, on account of a want of Funds.
Feb., Application made to the Legislature of New Jersey for assistance. £1000 asked for.
The proposition rejected.
March11, Petition to the PennsylvaniaAssembly, and remonstrance against Arthur Donaldson' s claim to be the inventor of the steamboat.
18, Law giving John Fitch exclusive rights for fourteen years in boats propelled by Fire and steam, passed by the State of New Jersey.
23, Another petition and remonstrance against Donaldson s pretensions,
to the Legislature of Penna., referred to a committee.
t ~~ & W XJ s A X ,
April 17, Steamboat Company formed.
Working model of a steam engine with one inch cylinder made.
July Skiff moved by steam engine, three inch cylinder, on the Delaware , at Philadelphia. Experiment unsatisfactory, on account of the paddles not working well.
27, Skiff moved by steam, with the newly invented oars, at considerable speed, and to the satisfaction of the projectors.
Sept Petition to the Assembly of Pa., for a loan of £150, to aid in prosecuting the experiment, and building a boat for working purposes.
11, Committee report favorably.
The Assembly negative the proposed law.
.
1786
. Nov. 2, Another petition to the Assembly of Pennsylvannia
for an exclusive right in the steamboat.
Dec., ,Drawing made description of Fitch s steamboat published in the Columbian Magazine.
28, Arthur Donaldson protests against the passage of a law in favour of Fitch.
1787 March, Reply of Fitch, and argument against Donaldson.
28, Bill giving exclusive rights in the steamboat to John Fitch
passed, finally, in Pennsylvannia.
Feb. 3, Law securing exclusive Rights to Fitch passed by the state of Delaware.
24, Memorial to the Legislature of New York.
27, Favorable report, and the law securing the rights of Fitch reported.
March 19, Law of New York passed.
Aug. 22, The new steam-boat tried on the Delaware, [cylinder 12 inches,] and the experiment Witnessed by nearly all the m embers of the Convention to form the Constitution of the U. S. Certificate by Dr. Johnson, of Virginia, David Rittenhouse, John Ewing, and Andrew Ellicott.
Oct., Fitch's company first informed that James Rumsey, of Virginia, claimed to be inventor of a steamboat.
Nov. 7, Law in favor of Fitch passed by the state of Virginia.
Petition to the Assembly of Maryland for a law, by John Fitch.
Feb., Petition to Congress for a grant of land, to aid in the construction of the boat.
March., Rumsey s pamphlet first circulated in Philadelphia.
Thus it will be seen that John Fitch had, from August, 1785, (when his petition was presented to Congress,) until October, 1787, been openly and notoriously prosecuting his schemes before public bodies. During all that time, James Rumsey, who claimed to have thought of a stcam-boat in 1781, which was ready for trial in December, 1785, and which was propclled by steam in the spring of 1786, and during 1787, did not in any manner press his claims to that invention, although his rival had come into his native State, Maryland, and into Virginia, in which he resided, and had asked privledges from his friends and fellow-citizens which, if Rumsey's allegations were true, Fitch should never have obtained In all these proceedings by the Pennsylvanian he met with no opposition, upon account of a want of originality in his plan .,
Rumsey's friends and neighbors, and even his representatives, made no suggestion that Fitch infringed upon him. The steam-boat was encouraged on all hands, as a novel and most important invention. The whole country rang with accounts of it Yet all this time, according to the statements made, thirty months after the Pennsylvanian had entered upon his enterprise, Mr. Rumsey was not only the original projector of the steam-boat, but had propelled one before Fitch moved his skiff and larger boat by steam on the Delaware These circumstances are very stubborn facts in this controversy, and they cannot fail in having their effect upon the minds of the reflecting
" The Original steamboat supported " was bold and defiant
In that publication the ground was strongly
travel that the time at which Rumsey's steam-boat (experiments
were represented to have taken place was aantedated; that, having
failed in the pole-boat, Rumsey attempted to deceive the public
by assertions that the favorable certificates of the performances
of that machine were given to the steam-boat. The question as
to who first thought of the steam-boat, was not contested by Fitch.
He admitted that General Washington told him, in November or December,
1785, that Rumsey load spoken of steam, but that he (General
Washington) did not think that he placed any very great reliance
upon it as a moving power ' The controversy, between these parties
seemed to be most bitterly fought upon the question, Who made
the first experiments ? The Pennsylvanian did not scruple to assert
that the Virginian never determined to employ that subtle agent,
steam, until the pole-boat failed, and until the experiments upon
the Delaware were notorious throughout the country He commenced
by giving an historical account of his own proceedings with the
proper vouchers. He showed , by the petition of Rumsey to the
Assembly of Pennsylvania of November 26, 1784, that his boat was
to be propelled, by the combined influence of certain mechanical
powers thereto applied, the distance between twenty-five and
forty-five miles per day, against the current of a rapid river,
" at no greater expense than that of three hands " Manuel
Eyre, a member of the Committee of the Assembly of Pennsylvania
to whom that application had been referred, declared that Rumsey
made no mention of steam in connection with his moving power.
This certificate, and that of General Washington, who saw the
experiment at Bath in 1784, that the machinery vas " so simple
that it could be executed by any common mechanic," justified
the inference anal argument that the steam-engine, a thing which
Fitch's own experience had taught him was most difficult to make,
was not the motive power used at that time; and that the laws
which Rumsey had obtained in the early part of 1785 in Virginia,'
Marvland, and Pennsylvania, secured him his rights in the pole-boat
only. This, it was argued, could not be otherwise, inasmuch as
in those statutes there was no mention of steam or of a steam-boat
The passage of laws securing to Fitch his rights in boats propelled
by the force of fire and steam, without any intimation on the
part of true various assemblies that they conflicted in any manner
with Rumsey's previous laws, was also relied upon as a
proof that there was really no interference. Rumsey's pamphlet, page 4, furnished an additional argument
by the incautious confession, " I find my idea of steam was nearly matured before steam had entered his [Fitch's] imagination, by his confession to Governor Johnson:" viz., in April, 1785 " This is a proof,"
Says Fitch "that when he obtained these laws, his idea of steam was not matured."
The application by Rumsey to Gov Johnson for castings for a steam-engine
in October or Novembers 1785, was alleged to be a misstatement;
and it was declared that the engine said to have been completed
at Fredericktown, in December, 1785 , was not begun until March,
1786. The statement of Gov Johnson, of Maryland, made Dec. 18th,
1787, to the above effect, was controverted, and it was asserted
that either "his memory or his candor was at fault "
Fitch asks verny pertinently how the Governor could have written
the favororable letter recommending his steamboat, vehicle bearss
date Nov. 25th, 1785 (see page 144), when, according to Rumsey
s statement, his steam-boat was within six days of completion.
Gov J attempted to reconcile this discrepancy in his letter to
Rumsev, by Saying that he felt himself bound to keep the fact
that the latter intended to rely upon steam " a secret."
He says that he kept it "a secret." after the application
to him to cast a cylinder [Oct. ,1785], until he found that tile
cylinder cast at Fredericktown "was a subject of pretty gencral
conversation. " Now, if the entire steam-engine was finished
by the 1st of December, 1785, the cylinder must have been completed
before Fitch visitedGov Johnson [Nov. 25th], and the obligation
to secrecy
was already removed, because the matter was generally known. How, then, could the Governor give Fitch the letter of recommendation of that date, which was written at Fredericktown, where this " pretty general conversation" was recurring ? In that epistle he calls him "a man of real genius and modesty " If Fitch had then come forward with a second-hand idea, the confirmation of his genius would have been absurd. Governor Johnson also said that Fitch intended to force vessels by steam " through any kind of water," a phrase believed to be employed to distinguish the power from that used in Rumsey s pole-boat, which could only go against streams. How, too, could Gov. Johnson, as an honest man, recommend Fitch warmly to the attention of Gov Smallwood, if he knew that His steam boat conflicted altogether with Rumsey's steamboat ? From these difficulties there seems no escape, but by the conclusion that in 1785 Gov J was either acting hypocritically to Fitch and false to Rumsey, or that in 1787, through a loss of memory, or an overanxiety to aid his friend, he made misstatements.
In regard to Joseph Barnes and Charles Morrow, the only persons who assign to Rumsev's experiments a period anterior to the time of Fitch's trials, the ground was boldly taken that both were perjured and interested witnesses, both being partners of Rumsey. These persons differed: Barnes declaring that all the works were on board the boat in Dec. 1785, and Morrow stating that although ready at the time, the engine was not set up until experiment, 1786, when the first experiment was made.
In order to sustain his positions, Fitch produced the
affidavit of Frederick Tombough, a partner of Mr. Zimmers, coppersmith
of Fredericktown, who declared that the copper pipes for Rumsey's
steam-boat were made in March, 1786, and not in October or November
1785. The widow of Zimmers declared that there was no account
in her late husband's books to show when Rumsey obtained the
copper works, but that she knew that Michael Baltzell turned the
works for the first] machinery. The latter certified that he turned
a round piece of wood for Zimmers to round his copper works upon,
in March, 1786 Jonathan Morris certified that in March, 1786,
he was told that Zimmers had begun some machinery for Rumsey,
and he (Morris) called at the coppersmith's Shop to see it, but
was refused a sight of it, and was told that it was retained "as
Mr. Rumsey's secret " John Peters made affidavitit that he
made the tin walk for the engine at the same time that Zimmers
was at the copper work, and that it was in March, 1786. John Frymiller,
who had been an apprentice of Zimmers, made oath that Rumsey's
work was begun in the spring of 1786. Joshua Minshall, a coppersmith
of Fredericktown, testified that he knew that it was late in the
spring or summer of 1786 before Zimmers commenced the work for
Rumsey. Christopher Raborg, of Baltimore, who was engaged to
make brass cocks for Rumsey, which he was told were "for
the warm springs," said that, not being able to furnish them
himself, he got Charles Weir & Co. to complete them. He had
no charge by which he could ascertain the time, but believed it
to be in the fall of 1785. Rumsey declared that those cocks were
not for "the warm springs," but for the steam-boat.
This latter statement was contradicted by Charles Weir and Isaac
Causten, who composed the firm of Chas. Weir & Co. Weir stated
that, from his memory, he believed it to be in the spring of 1786
that he did that work. Causten declared that the books of the
firm had been destroyed by fire, but that from some loose papers
in his possession he found that four brass cocks were charged
to Raborg, on the 29th of March, 1786 Thus it will be perceived,
that opposed to the statement of Morrow and Barnes, that the steam-engine
was ready by December, 1785, were the certificates and affidavits
of nine persons, all of whom declared that the machinery was not
begun until March, 1786, or seven months after Fitch had applied
to Congress, and had spread the news of his discovery through
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland The testimony thus adduced
was relied upon to show that instead of Rumsey's boat being completed
in December, 1785, and tested in 1786, the steam machinery was
not ready until December, 1786, and the boat was not tried until
December, 1787, more than sixteen months after Fitch's skiff steam-boat
was propelled on the Delaware, and three months after the successful
experiment with the larger boat, which was witnessed by the members
of the Federal Convention.
In Rumsey's pamphlet, after stating that he had been experimenting upon steam-engines in secret, and after having informed General Washington by letter of 10th March, that he intended to apply both powers (viz, steam and the pole mechanism), to a boat built
after the model at Bath, he says, "I was under many disadvantages
arising from my remote situation, and could gain truth only by
successive experiments, incredible delays were produced, and though
my distresses were greatly increased thereby, I bore the peltings
of ignorance and ill nature with all resignation, until I was
informed some dark assassins had endeavored to wound the reputation
of his Excellency and the other gentlemen who saw my exhibition
at Bath, for giving me a certificate. The reflections upon these
worthy gentlemen give me inexpressible uneasiness, and I should
certainly
have quitted my steam-engines, though in a great state of forwardness,
and produced the boat for which I obtained their certificate (the
pole-boat), for their justification and my own, although I had
actually made several experiments on a boat with steam, but Mr.
Fitch came out at this minute with his steam-boat asserting that
he was the first inventor of steam, and that I had gotten what
small knowledge I had from him, but that I had not the essentials
"' He then refers to a letter from Daniel Buckley, living
near Philadelphia, to a gentleman residing in Berkeley County,
in which, speaking of Dr Mcmechen, partner of Rumsey, Mr Buckley
says-"I am sorry he has been deluded by a person who I have
reason to believe is a deceiver, as Mr. Fitch, of Philadelphia,
says Mr. Rumsey 'got what small knowledge of steam he has of him,"'
&;c Rumsey then proceeds to declare in his pamphlet, that
as there was no time to lose, he "proceeded with ardour in
perfecting the steam engine, and that it is now so far completed
as to render the valuable purpose manifest," etc. It would
seem from this, that it was not until after Mr. Buckley's letter
was written, that Mr Rumsey perceived that the critical moment
had arrived, and that it was after that time that his steam-boat
was produced. Now arises the very important question, What was
the date of Buckley's letter ? It is a curious thing, that no
date whatever is given to it in Rumsey's pamphlet, and the reader
is evidently expected to understand that the letter was written
shortly after the time that Barnes and Morrow say the steam machinery
was commenced, viz, in May, 1785. In opposition to this may be
noticed the fact that Mr
Buckley speaks of " Mr Fitch, of Philadelphia " It has been already shown that his residence was in Bucks County during the whole of 1785, and it was not until the formation of the steam-boat company in April, 1786, that he became an inhabitant of the city. Added to this is the certificate of Mr Daniel Buckley, in "'the Original steamboat supported>" that he does not know from his memory the date of the letter written to Virginia, to which Rumsey refers, but it was "then Mr Samuel Briggs was making patterns for Mr. Fitch's castings " The affidavit of Briggs stated that the first patterns for castings made by him for Fitch was in the summer of 1786, and that Daniel Buckley was in his shop several times during that summer, so that the "critical moment" when Mr Rumsey found it necessary for him to go on with his steam-boat, must have been in 1786 and not 1785, and consequently the vessel could not have been tried until 1787.
In addition to these arguments, there was a statement by Fitch
that the winter of 1785 was mild and open, and that there could
have been no ice in the Potomac to interfere with Rumsey's experiments,but
that in the month of December, 1786, the weather was precisely
such as would have stopped the navigation of the river.
There was another matter of dispute about the pipe boiler, which,
by persuasion of Voight and order of the Company, was placed in
Fitch's steam-boat in the spring of 1788. Rumsey declared the
whole plan had been taken from him, and that it was in the essentials
similar to his own. To this Fitch replied, that such a boiler
was originally devised by himself, and described in his papers
laid before the Philosophical Society in September, 1785. In proof
of that fact, he exhibited a certificate of Dr John Ewing, dated
Sept. 27, 1785, stating that in Fitch's explanation of his draft
he revealed that "his intention of conveying the waters from
his forcing pump in a Tube that passed through the fire was, that
it might thereby be set a boiling before it entered the Receiver,
lest the cold water mixing with the boiling
water in the Receiver should impede the generation of steam " '
Upon this boiler Voight improved, but being fearful of risking their success upon a theory, they thought it best to use the boiler of the old plan
The affidavits of Timothy Matlack and John Nancarrow also established
this point Matlack declared that Henry A Voight had shown him
the draft of a spiral tube for generating steam for his
stcam-boat in the latter part of June, 1786. Nancarrow, who was
present, was consulted about it. He advised Voight to use the
common grate boiler, and not to trust to uncertain experiments
This advice was taken at first, but on the day the affidavits
were made, July 14, 1788, both Matlack and Nancarrow inspected
the pipe boiler, then set up in Fitch's steam-boat, and found
it to be the same in principle as that shown them in l786 Voight
also suggested the same principles, viz, a spiral pipe or worm
for a condenser. It was
through that the best way of applying fire for evaporation ration into steam, must also be the best way of applying cold water to condense steam, that is by bringing the greatest quantitity of fire into action upon the greatest surface of water-or the contrary. It is clear that Fitch first suggested the pipe boiler, but Voight having materially improved it, his partner relinquished his rights in it to him. Speaking of Rumsey's claim to that invention, Fitch said-"whether I have got his mode of creating steam, or whether he has got mine, I do not at present know. But as both Mr Rumsey and Mr Voight laid their plans before the Philosophical Society the same day, it will appear how far they are alike "
In reference to this matter, it appears from the minutes of the
American Philosophical Society that on the 5th of April 1788,
Rumsey's pamphlet was presented. On the 18th of the same month
"a letter singed X Y, with a draft, model, and explanation
of an improved boiler for steam-engines," was laid before
the Society, as a candidate for the Magellanic premium. The regulations
concerning the m anner in which this prize was to be awarded,
required that the communication should be marked with a signature
or motto, and that it should be accompanied by a sealed package
containing the name of the author, which was not to be opened
but in case of the success of the essay. On the same evening a
letter was received from Mr. James Rumsey, of the State of Virginia,
accompanied, with a drawing and description of an improved boiler,
for a steam-engine;" also drawings and descriptions of grist-mills,
saw-mills and pumps.
On the same evening "a letter was received with drawings and descriptions of various improvements in boilers
for generating steam, from Mr Henry Voight."
Ordered, that Dr Ewing, Mr Rittenhouse, and Mr Professor Patterson
be a Committee to examine the several papers on the use of steam,
and to make report to the society thereon
,
May 2,1788-A letter, with a drawing and description for an improved
boiler for Steam Engines, was received from a candidate for the
Annual Prerllium, under the signature of "Retrograde."
:."
A report from the Committee to whom were referred sundry papers
by the Society at their last meeting, was produced and read as
follows viz.,
"Your Committee have examined the several papers to them referred by the Society at their last meeting, except that offered for the Annual premium; on which they do not think it proper to give their opinion at present.
; "The principle which Mr Rumsey and Mr. Voight seem to have adopted in their proposed Boilers-to exit, to increase the surface, and to diminish the quantity of water exposed to the alction of the fire, appears to your Committee in general to be just. But what must be the best application of this principle, must, no doubt in some measure be determined by actual experiments..
" These improvements Mr Rumsey proposes in Dr. Barker's
grist mill, and that in the saw mill, and that in the raising
of water by means of a steam engine, are certainly ingenious in
theory, and well deserve a full trial.
John Ewing
David Rittenhouse
Robert Patterson
.
The essays of " Retrograde" and " X Y " remained
on hand for two years. They were laid over for con-
sideration at the meeting in December, 1789, and again in 1790 In the latter year, ' X Y presented a supplementary and explanatory paper to the piece presented in the month of April, 1788, on the subject of an improved boiler for steam-engines, together with a tin model" Afterwards it was reported that 'both " X Y " and " Retrograde" were inadmissible, in consequence of a noncompliance with prescribed rules
It will therefore be seen that ) both Voight and Rumsey openly
laid their plans of boilers before the Society on the same evening Both at the same time sought the award of the Magellanic Gold Meddal, in communications signed "N Y " and " Retrograde."
The essay of "Retrograde" remains with the Society;
but that of " X Y " has disappeared We are enabled to
make up the deficiency partly by an extract from the Columbian
Magazine for 1789, page 602. It contains a report of the proceedings
of the Society, as follows:
"April 18,1,88-Presented, a model drawing and describe description of an improved boiler for steam engines, from a candidate for the annual premium, under the signature X Y
This boiler is in the form of a double cylinder, or one cylinder
enclosed in another, leaving a space between the inner surface
of the one and the outer surface of the other of about two inches,
in which the avatar is contained; the cylinders being joined together
at both ends Through the outer cylinder are
, zmade two holes (the one near the top, the ether near the bottom),
into which are fastened two tubes; through the one the boiler
is supplied with mater, and through the earlier the steam is
conveyed to whatever place it may be wanted. The boiler is surrounded
both on the concave and convex surfaces, by a double cyndrical
grate, into which the fuel is to be put.
In the same magazine, page 674, is an account of the proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, under the date of May 2, 1788 The presentation of a communication under the signature " Retrograde" is noticed and it is added, "this is precisely the same with Mr Rumsey's pipe-boiler, mentioned on the same page " " X Y " was the signature, therefore, of Henry A Voight " Retrograde" of James Rumsey.
The double-cylinder boiler of Voight was an improvement, it was
thought, upon the pipe boiler of John Fitch. The latter was simply
a collection of pipes, united at the end and bent together in
a small space, crossing each other like the worm of a still About
two hundred feet were thus brought together; and the fire being
around them, and the flames ascending
through and among them, caused a speedy creation of steam This was the first tubular boiler known to have been used in any part of the world The " improved boiler," the plan of which was laid before the Society, was upon the same principle, viz: the exposure of a surface of a small quantity of water to the action of the fire. The double cylinder was a tube surrounding a tube. The heat applied to the outer and inner surfaces created steam quickly. The idea of employing a wooden furnace to enclose the whole, even although coated with Cavendish's anti-combustion composition, will excite a smile at this day.
But let us return to the Battle of the Pamphlets. " The Original steamboat supported" was certainly a very conclusive publication; and it placed the claim of Rumsey, that he had propelled a steamboat before Fitch had done so, in a very doubtful situation It proved very conclusively that if the witnesses relied upon by the Pennsylvanian were truthful, there had been an ingenious system of "false datings " in the pamphlet of the Virginian.
The agents of the latter did not rest quiet, but brought out, towards the close of the year, an answer, which was entitled " Remarks on Sir John Fitch's reply to Mr. James Rumsey's pamphlet, by Joseph Barnes, formerly assistant, and now attorney in fact to James Rumsey Philadelphia: Printed by Joseph James, Chestnut street MDCCLS-XXVIII" In this publication, Barnes applied himself assiduously to sustain the statements made by his principal
Morrow was the chief witness who fixed any time in
1785 as that when the machinery was all on board ,
Rumsey's steamboat; and in his first affidavit he declared that
it was ready by December, when the ice prevented the boat from
being tried He now retracted that statement, and declared that
<£9 16s were paid Raborg for the four brass cocks, on
the 29th of October, 1785 Conrad Byers made oath that in October
or November,1785, he put hands on two brass or copper cocks for
Rumsey, some springs for opening and shutting them, two pistons,
and some flanches; and that he understood that they there for
the steam-boat. Francis Hamilton declared that in December, 1785,
Barnes and James McMechen brought a boat of about six tons burthen,
with a variety of machinery on board, to the Shenandoah Falls;
that there were copper cylinders, or copper boilers, copper cocks,
pumps, etc; that they continued fixing the machinery until January
7, 1786, when, the ice driving in the river, they desisted, drew
the boat up, took out the machinery, and laid it in his (Hamilton's)
cellar, that on the 14th of March, 1786, a trial was made, when
the boat moved against the current, though not with much success,
owing to the imperfections of the machinery, he, the said Hamilton,
with Barnes, McMechen, and Morrow, being on board Mrs. Zimmers
now declared that it was in November, 1785, that her husband made
" two round copper things " for Rumsey, and that they
were finished and taken away before Christmas of the same year;
and that she recollected that certain brass cocks were fixed to
them Christopher Raborg also Hanged his statement, and said that
Weir & Co made the brass cocks for him in the fall of 1785.
Weir, too, declared that he had made the cocks for Raborg, and
delivered them October 15, 1785, having since found a receipt
which enabled him to specify the time. Causten (or Cursten) stated
that the four brass cocks made for Raborg in April, which he spoke
of in the affidavit furnished by him to Fitch, could not have
been the same that were made for Rumsey, which he was persuaded
were finished by October 14, 1785. No retraction was obtained
from Tombough, Peters, Baltzell, Morris, Minshall, or Frymiller.
So that, of the ten who originally testified that the machinery
of Rumsey's boat was made by Zimmers & Raborg in 1786, six
persons still maintained their original allegations. Beside that,
Barnes himself furnished evidence that the boiler could not have
been finished in December, 1785. This was contained in affidavits
and statements by John Ritchie, Michael Entler, and Jonathan Osborn,
that they prepared and welded barrels, or " scalps,"
for the boiler, in January and February, 1786. William Askew
testified that in Philadelphia, in September, 1787, he had communicated
to Voight that Rumsey had been making experiments, and that in
January, 1788, he informed Voight of the principles of the pipe-boiler,
of which the latter professed to have never heard, and the utility
of which he doubted. In the written part of the pamphlet, Barnes
admitted that work had been made for Rumsey by Zimmers in March,
1786, as was alleged in Fitch's statement; but it WAS declared
that those articles belonged to a secoind engine. In regard to
the position of Governor Johnson, it was argued that, as he was
aware that Fitch's plan of a steam-boat differed from Rumsey's,
he thought it his duty to encourage both. The statements alleged
to have been made in a letter of Rumsey to Washington, March 10,
1785, that the newly invented plan of propulsion would make boats
go against the current of the Mississippi or Ohio, and in the
Gulf Stream, it was said must have alluded to a steam-boat, as
the pole-boat could not have made such performance. There was
also a certificate of John Wilson, of Philadelphia, that Rumsey
had told him, in 1783, that he intended to build a boat, to go
by steam; and one of like character from Moses Hunter, certifying
to a conversation held in 1784.
To rebut these allegations, new affidavits and certificates were procured by Fitch, and published in a broadside or handbill form. These statements confirmed very conclusively the original argument, that the dates of Rumsey's steam experiments had been placed at earlier periods than when they really occurred. The great point in contest was, whether the steam machinery of Rumsey was all finished and on board the boat at Sheppardstown in December, 1785; which vessel had then been damaged by ice. Englehart Cruze testified that he had lived in Sheppardstown in May and June, 1787, and that Rumsey had told him that his boat was damaged in the winter before [1786], and was repaired in the spring [1787]. Rumsey then spoke of Fitch's boat, which he said was moved by paddles, and said that a person had been on to Philadelphia and had seen it. At that time Rumsey's boat had the trunks for pumping water and ejecting it fixed il it. Cruze saw the cylinder which was made at Fredricktown. It was eleven or twelve inches in diameter, and Barnes was then adding a piece to make it wider Rumsey said that he had tried the stream boat, [poleboat,] and when he found that it would not answer the desired purpose, had determined to use steam.
Benjamin Harris declared that he had worked for Rumsey in the
spring of 1786 for one month; that in the fall of the same year
he saw the boat worked up the river with setting-po1es, near the
shore. He saw in it " a wheel nearly similar to the fiutter-wheel
of a sawmill" There was a smaller wheel at the bow, "
about the size of a wheelbarrow wheel, and others, with considerable
other machinery" These articles belonged to the pole or stream-boat;
there was nothing like flutter-wheels in Rumsey's steam-boat,
which was propelled altogether by a pumping apparatus.
John Eremere made oath that he helped to take Rumsey's machinery on board his boat in May, 1786. As far as recollected, it consisted of two pipes of copper, five and a half feet long and six inches in diameter, a large boiler of copper, a large fan-wheel, with a spindle through both crosses at the ends, two long pieces of iron, eight or nine feet, and shape similar to a soldier's cutlass [supposed to be settingpoles], a number of paddles, or small boards [for the steam-wheel] There was no trunk or double bottom. The hold was clear all the way from stem to stern, like that of any other boat, and no steam boiler was in it
Leonard Smith testified that he steered Rumsey's boat in May or June, 1786, when it was tried with different ways of working-among others, with setting poles. Other machinery WAS put on board afterward, and the boat went up the river. It had flutter wheels and pieces of iron, as described by Eremere, which were for setting it up against the stream. It had no trunk or double bottom at that time, nor was such plan then spoken of.
Jacob Kendel stated that he had frequently seen the tin-work finished
for Rumsey's boat by John Peters, A} which he stated was made
in the spring of 1786. George Schnetzel declared that he had sold
borax to Zimlllers in February, 1786, who told him that he produced
it for the purpose of soldering work for Rumsey's steamboat; which
was the first he had heard of such a machine. George Jacobus Schley,
of Frederickton, testified that Fitch had shown him his model
of the steam-boat whilst lodging at his house, in December, 1785,
on his return from Richmond He never heard of a steam-boat before,
or again till the spring of 1786, when Zimmers was working for
Rumsey; which was a topic of common conversation. G Scllley confirmed
this statement He never heard of a steam-boat until several months
after Fitch was at his house. Rumsey's boat was not talked about
before the spring of 1786. Frederick Huselv was often in Zimmers'
shop in the winter of 1785. He never heard of any work for the
steam-boat until the spring of 1786.
John Beatty, Sr, a member of the Maryland legislature at the session of 1785-6, lived next door to Zimmers in Fredericktown. He had no supposition at the time that Fitch applied to the Assembly that Rumsey had invented a stcam-boat He first heard of it in the spring of 1786. John Beatty, Jr, and Zaccheus Beatty also neighbors of Zimmers, made similar declarations. Abram Faw, also a member of the legislature., and a resident of Fredericktown, was one of the Committee on Fitch's petition when it was presented. He knew of Rumsey's pole-boat at that time. He heard nothing of his steam-boat until the spring of 1786. George Kay first saw Rumsey's boat in the Potomac in 1787. It had oars, and sweeps, and poles, to use when the water was shallow. He was told that it was a steam-boat.
The evidence of witnesses on both sides may therefore be summed
up as follows upon the principal point:
Excluding, the statements of Messrs. Zimmers, Chas. E. Weir, Causten, and Raborg, who each told two different stories, and are not therefore worthy of reliance on either side, we find that twenty-one persons declared that Rumsey's boat was not commenced until the spring of l786, whilst but four, two of whom were interested, stated that it was finished in December, 1785.
Let us, then, candidly review the true condition of Rumsey's claims, as they are to be deduced from the publications, affidavits and certificates on both sides.
There can be no doubt whatever that the boat exhibited by him
at Bath in 1784 , was a steam or pole boat There is no question
that the laws protecting him in hiS rights for his invention,
passed in 1784 and 1785 by Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvannia,
were not for a steam-boat. Fitch made his plans public in August,
1785, by his letter to Congress. He went among the friends, acquaintances,
and immediate representatives of Rumsey, in December of that year,
and in January, 1786, when he sought laws for the protection of
his invention. At that time the novelty of his plan seemed to
be conceded. It was not hinted by those who knew of Rumsey's prior
laws, and who had seen his boat, that Fitch's method of propulsion
was an infringement. That the steam-boat of the latter was completed
in December, 1785, seems to be contradicted by every probability.
It was not until the spring of 1786 that Rumsey's intention to
make such a boat was the common topic of conversation in Fredericktown.
The testimony of his own witnesses, Osborn and Entler, who began
the pipe-boiler in February, 1786, shows that the work was not
taken away from the shop to be placed in the boat until more than
six months after it was finished, say in October or November,
1786 The boat court not have been ready therefore until the latter
part of that year. It will also be recollected that the successful
experiments of Rumsey were not made until 3d and 11th of December,
1787, just about two years after he declared that his boat was
completed. It may therefore be asked very pertinently, How it
was that there was so much delay in exhibiting a machine which
was perfect twenty-four months before it was brought before the
public ? During all that time Fitch was working and spreading
intelligence of his discovery abroad: Rumsey, according to
his own declaration, was secretly engaged in perfecting his machines
and allowing his rival to obtain laws to his detriment, not only
in New Jersev, Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware, but in Virginia,
in the neighborhood of Rumsev's residence. 'These circumstances
lead to the conclusion, that although Rumsey may have thoought
of steam as a propelling force in 1783 and 1784 (as Paine did
in 1776, and Henry did in 1778), he placed no reliance upon it.
It was "an "immatured idea," to use the language
attributed to General Washington, and it was not until John Fitch
had excited public attention by his scheme for a steamboat, that
Rumsey, abandoning his failure, the pole or stream boat, determined
to employ steam as a motive power. His boat in 1786 still had
the 'flutter-wheels and setting-poles of the original invention,
as appears from the affidavits of Cruze, Harris, Eremere, and
Smith. It could not have been until 1787 that the trunks were
adopted and that method of propulsion had before been described
by Bernouilli, Franklin, Donaldson, and Fitch .
We might here conclude this part of the subject, but it is necessary to notice what may be termed the official injustice of a later generation In 1836 the heirs of Rumsey applied to Congress for a remuneration, upon the allegation that their ancestor was the inventor of the steam-boat A report was made March 2d, 1837, which was not acted on. At the session in 1838-9, another memorial was presented by the heirs of Rumsey.
The subject was on both occasions referred to a select Committee,
of which Mr. Underwood was Chairman. The last report was most
full, and of that we shall speak. It perhaps would not be unjust
to say that no very minute investigation was likely to be made
by a body of politicians in regard to a strictly scientific matter.
It is probable that the Committee tried to examine into the subject
before them fairly, but they were altogether without light, other
than that which was furnished by the claimants. That the latter
were in much ignorance of the real condition of the claims of
their ancestor, may also be charitably suggested. The pamphlets
of Rumsey and Barnes, and the " Original steamboat supported''
of Fitch were not before this Committee. Nor did they know that
copies of them were in the Philadelphia Library and the library
of the Ameriean Philosophical Society. The evidence which was
offered was very meagre. No notice was taken of the pole-boat;
but on the contrary, it was assumed that the vessel tried in September
1784, was a STEAMBOAT.
Nicholas Orrick sustained this position. He testificd that he was a partner of James Rumsey in 1783; that in the beginning of 1784 the latter built a smalll boat on the Potomac, and that in the autumn of that year he went on board and took with him his brother-in-law. The machinery was ready. Orrick; pushed the boat into the stream, and it was worked by steam, but not to their satisfaction " The public experiment was made some years afterward. " This statement is no doubt incorrect. Mr Rumsey never c]aimed that his boat was moved by steam before 1787, when the successful experiments were made in December. Mr Rumsey says hilmself, ill his first pamphlet, page 4, in refeence to the boat of 1784, ' In the month of September,1784, I exhibited the model of a boat before his Excellency, General Washington, at Bath, in Berkeley County, calculated for stemmingg the currents of rapid rivers onlyly, constructed on principles very different from my present one.(1788) Satisfied with the experiment of her making way against a rapid stream by the force of the stream, the General was pleased to give me a most ample certificate of her efficiency. " The same Nicholas Orrick made an affidavit, May19th, 1788, published in Barnes' pamphlet, page 11, in which he made no reference whatever to any trial of a steam-boat in 1784, or indeed, at any other time; but certified that he ahd seen Rumsey try some experiments in January, 1785;during which he poured water into a hollow wooden tube, which, by hydrostatic power drew up weight, and Upon being questioned as to its intention, he said, " by that principle he would make the boat go " This was all that Mr Orrick testified, at a time when the circumstances were fresh in his memory. The fair presumption is, that fifty years afterward, his recollection had become so much impaired that he had altogether forgotten the pole-boat, of which he made no mention, and that he confused a trial made with it with the steam-boat experiments in after years. This affidavit seems to have been relied upon by the Congressional Committee without further examination; for they assumed that the Virginia law of 1784, and the Maryland and Pennsylvania laws of 1785, securing Rumsey's right to his invention for propelling a boat against a stream by mechanical powers, were really granted for a steamboat !
Ashton Alexander was also examined before this Committee. He declared
that he was on board Rumsey's boat when it was propelled by steam
in 1786 or 1787; the latter time being the most probable. A letter
was also received from Henry Bcdinger, one of the witnesses mentioned
in Rumsey's pamphlet, who testified to his having seen Rumsey's
boat moved by steam to " Swearinger's Run; where it made
a circuit and returned-a distance of about half a mile" This,
was no doubt the experiment to which he testified by certificate,
publishled in Rumsey's first pamphlet. He there fixes the date
of the trial on the 3d of December, 1787 On this incomplete testimony,
the Committee of Congress seem to have been satisfied that Rumsey
was not only the first who thought of a steamboat, but the first
who demonstrated the feasibility of the principle by actual experiment.
They accordingly, by report of February 6, 1839, so declared,
and recommended that a gold medal should be granted to his Representatives.
l This suggestion was never adopted by Congress.
Enough has already been given in these pages to show that the
Committee were mistaken. As they acted altogether ex parte,
having nobody before them to press the claims of Fitch, it is
not surprising that they boldly attempted to settle so important
a matter upon superficial investigation. Rumsey may have conceived
the idea that steam might be applied to navigation in 1783, but
he certainly made no effort to prove its adaptability to such
purpose until after Fitch had publicly laid his claims before
Congress, and published the nature of the principles which he
relied upon to the world. It is a question for the reader to decide
upon, who made the first successful experiments. It has been shown
that Fitch did so in 1786, and before the members of the Convention
to frame the Federal Constitutions in August, 1787. Rumsey has
produced no evidence of a public experiment with his steamboat
until December, 1787.