CHAPTER XXII.

STEAM­BOAT EXPERIMENTS IN EUROPE AND AMERICA.

OUR task would not be complete were we to omit some reference to numerous attempts to navigate steam­boats in Europe and America, and particularly to the manner in which the biographers of Robert Fulton have endeavored to conceal the real merit of Fitch in building and successfully navigating such vessels.

James Ramsey went to England in May, 1788, having been sent thither by the Rumseian Society, to procure patents in that country, if possible. His steam­boat, which was tried at Shepherdstown in December, 1787, made no more than the short experimental trips, which demonstrated that a boat might be moved by steam. For some reason,ómost probably because the projector thought it too imperfect in the machinery to be of utility,óit was then abandoned. The first successful steam­boat trips in the world by which passengers and freight were carried, were made on the Delaware, in 1787, 1788, 1789, and more particularly in 1790, when Fitch's boat ran as a regular packet.

In England Rumsey met with patrons, and it was determined to build a steam­boat on his plan. Before the work was completed, Rumsey fell from his chair in an apoplexy, and died. His associates completed the vessel, and it was tried on the Thames, and moved successfully, in February, 1793. For some reason, not now known, the project was then abandoned.

There had been several patents taken out in England, previous to that time, for inventions in propelling boats, but the specifications were generally mysterious and vague, and it is impossible to know with certainty whether the claimants intended to rely upon steam. In 1578, Bourne obtained a patent for a boat to be propelled by means of wheels at the sides. David Ramsay, in 1630, procured letters for a method of making ships and barges to go against wind and tide. Other secured rights were obtained for methods of propelling boats, by Thomas Grent, in 1632, Francis Lin, in 1637 Edward Ford, 1640, the Marquis of Worcester, 1667, and Thomas Toogood, for forcing water out of the stern of a vessel by a bellows, 1661. In 1682, a horse­boat, moved by wheels at the side, was tried at Chatham, and used as a tow­boat. In 1730, Dr. John Allen proposed to move a boat by pumping in water and ejecting it from the stern, and suggested a steam engine for the purpose. Rumsey's boat seems to have been precisely the same. Jonathan Hulls produced the first specific plan for navigating a tow­boat by steam in 1736. It was to be moved by paddle­wheels, and Hulls had a scheme for converting a reciprocating rectilinear motion into a rotary one, by fixing two cranks to the hindmost axis, to which were to be affixed two shafts or poles, of proper length, to reach to the bottom of the river. These were to be moved alternately forward by the motion of the wheels, by which the vessel was to be carried on, so that the cranks received the rotary motion from the axis, which latter did not impart it. It does not appear that any boat was ever built by Hulls. He was merely a projector. All these plans were rendered inoperative by the ignorance of the parties as to the means of converting the rectilinear into a continued circular motion.

James Watt, in 1769, first discovered a means of making the steam act above the piston as well as below, and this double action rendered the steam­engine capable of propelling a steam­boat.'

It is asserted that Count Auxiron made some experiments on the Seine in 1774, aided by Perrier, and that the latter repeated the trial the next year with more success. In 1782, De Jouffroy, on the Saone, moved by steam a boat one hundred and forty feet long, which had paddle­wheels on the sides. Beyond the demonstration of the practicability of the plan, nothing was done by this inventor.

Next to these comes John Fitch, who was not satisfied with mere experiments, but labored assiduously at Philadelphia, from 1785 to 1792, to demonstrate the extent to which his invention might be carried. The skiffboat, moved by the model engine with three­inch cylinder, in July, 1786, Yeas succeeded by the large boat, propelled by a twelve­inch cylinder, in August, 1787. Passages were made to and from Burlington, in the summer and fall of 1788, several times. In 1789, there were more trials, but in 1790 the machinery was perfect, and the packet steamboat performed her work promptly, and went from two to three thousand miles, to the comfort and accommodation of all who patronized her.

Whilst this ingenious American was industriously engaged in trying to convince his countrymen of the applicability and value of his invention, experiments upon steam­boats were being made in Scotland.

In 1787, Patrick Miller, of Dalwinston, Scotland, built a boat to be propelled by paddle-wheels at the sides. He made an experiment on the Frith of Forth, in June of that year; not with a steam­engine, however, but by the application of the power of men, who worked a capstan. Steam was suggested to him by James Taylor, and William Symington, an ingenious young man, undertook to apply that power as a means of propulsion. About the beginning of October, 1788, two years after Fitch's first experiment on the Delaware, and ten months after Rumsey's boat was propelled on the Potomac, Miller and Symington put in motion the first steam­boat which had been built in Great Britain. It was a double pleasure­boat; or rather it was composed of two boats, connected by a flooring, the paddle­wheel working in the middle. This pioneer was made and tried on a lake on the estate of Mr. Miller, at Dalwinston. Encouraged by success, the parties set to work to build another boat, which was tried on the Forth and Clyde canal, on the 26th of December, 1789, and moved at the rate of seven miles an hour in the still water.'

The experiment made by Rumsey's associates on the Thames, in 1793, has been spoken of. The English writers declare that the first "practical steamboat" built in the Kingdom was the Charlotte Dundas, constructed by Symington. Fitch's steam­boat in 1789 and '90 was most certainly practical.

Before Symington's boat had been built, the United

States were again distinguished by the successful labors of a builder of steam­boats.

In 1790, Samuel Morey began to experiment upon steam­boats in the vicinity of the Connecticut River. He went thence to New York, and for three successive summers tried many plans of modifying steam engines for propulsion) and in testing the power of propellers. He took his boat back to Hartford in 1793, and having completed it, took it to New York the next summer. It was propelled by a wheel at the stern, at the rate of five miles an hour. Chancellor Livingston, Judge Livingston, Edward Livingston, John Stevens, and others, were on board when it went by the force of steam from the ferry at New York to Greenwich. Livingston offered to assist Morey if he could make the boat go at the rate of eight miles an hour. Perhaps stimulated by that offer, Morey went to the Delaware, and, aided by assistance Tom Dr.

Burgess Allison, built a boat near Bordentown New Jersey, with paddle­wheels at the sides. " The shaft moved across the boat with a shackle­bar, commonly so called, which moved on the principle which is now [1819] used in the largest boats." This boat was used with perfect success, and in 1797 was propelled to Philadelphia.' Want of funds prevented its being brought into public use.

In the Augusta [Georgia] Chronicle, published September 22d, 1792, William Longstreet, of Augusta, announced that he had invented a new steam­engine, of a very simple construction. He believed that it might be advantageously employed in the propulsion of a vessel, but such was the foolish prejudice against steam­boats then prevalent, that he scarcely dared to do more than to hint the applicability of his engine for such a purpose. He said,

" Such is my confidence with respect to the success of this machine, that I will venture to aver that for £500 one may be made, and kept in repair four years, that will be capable of grinding one hundred and fifty bushels of grain per day, or 8&W two thousand feet of Inch boards in the same time; and I would add, if it was not for fear of being accused with a baboon or steamboat project, how easily could I apply it to boating !"

In 1804, Oliver Evans, whose ingenuity and application to the improvement of the steam­engine have been useful and honorable to his country, constructed, at Philadelphia, a machine for cleaning out and deepening docks, which he called the Eruktor Amphibolis. Evans declares that he thought of propelling carriages by steam as early as 1793, and of applying the same power to boats in 1778ócertainly prior to 1771; but as John Fitch had spent much time and money in attempting to demonstrate the invention, " he yielded to him and his associates all the honors and profits justly due them as the original inventors." When the Eurktor was completed, Evans determined to show his incredulous fellow­citizens that it was possible to move wagons on the land and boats on the water by the power of steam. The mud­scow had a steam­engine in it, of the power of five horses.

" To show that both steam carriages and steam boats were practicable (with my steam engine), I first put wheels to it, and propelled it by the engine a mile and a half, and then into the Schuylkill, although its weight was equal to 200 barrels of flour. I then fixed a paddle wheel at the stern, and propelled it by the engine down the Schuylkill and up the Delaware, 16 miles, leaving all the vessels that were under sail full half way behind me (the wind being ahead), although the application was so temporary as to produce great friction, and the flat most fully formed for sailing; done in the presence of thousands." '

It is very likely that Evans was induced to undertake this remarkable experiment in order to convince the world that some of the scientific men of the day were visionary pretenders. Scarcely a year previously, Benjamin H. Latrobe, whose name stood fair as a philosopher, had gone out of his way to pronounce an opinion that the navigation of steam­boats to advantage was an impossibility. A society in Rotterdam had made inquiry of the American Philosophical Society, to know how many steam­engines were in use in the United States. Mr. Latrobe was appointed Chairman of the Committee. He accomplished his task by reporting that there were six steam­engines in the country, but he went on to demonstrate that steam­boats must fail. His language upon the subject was as follows:

" During the general lassitude of mechanical exertion which succeeded the American Revolution, the utility of steam engines appears to have been forgotten; but the subject afterward started into very general notice in a form in which if could not possibly be attended with success. A sort of mania began to prevail, which has not yet entirely subsided, for impelling boats by steam engines. Dr. Franklin proposed to force the boat forward by the immediate application of steam upon the water. Many attempts to simplify the working of the engine, and more to dispense with the beam in converting the vibratory into a rotary motion, were made. For a short time, a passage boat, rowed by a steam engine, was established between Bordentown and Philadelphia, but it wad soon laid aside. The best and most

powerful steam engine which has been used for this purposeó excepting, perhaps, one constructed by Dr. Kinsey, with the performance of which I am not sufficiently acquaintedóbelonged to a Gentleman of New York. It was made to act, by way of experiment, upon oars, upon paddles, and upon flutter wheels. Nothing in the success of any of these experiments appeared to be sufficient compensation for the expense and the extreme inconvenience of the steam engine in the vessel.

" There are, indeed, general objections to the use of the steam engine for impelling boats, from which no particular mode of application can be free. These are,

" First, the weight Of the engine and of the fuel.

" Second, the large space which it occupies.

" Third, the tendency of its action to rack the vessel, and render it leaky.

" Fourth, the expense of maintenance.

" Fifth, the irregularity of its motion, and the motion of the water in the boiler and cistern, and of the fuel vessel in rough rater.

" Sixth, the difficulty arising from the liability of the paddles and oars to break, if light, and from the weight if made strong

" Nor have I ever heard of an instance, verified by other testimony than that of the inventor, of a speedy and agreeable voyage having been performed in a steamboat of any construction.

" I am well aware that there are still many respectable and ingenious men who consider the application of the steam engine to the purpose of navigation as highly important, and as very practicable, especially on the rapid waters of the Mississippi, and who would feel themselves almost offended at the expression of an opposite opinion. And perhaps some of the objections against it may be avoided. That founded on the expense and weight of the fuel, may not for some years exist on the Mississippi, where there is a redundance of wood on the hanks; but the cutting and loading will be almost as great an evil."

These oracular opinions were expressed with great flippancy, but it is evident that Mr. Latrobe had very little knowledge of the subject on which he wrote. The performance of " the passage boat " on the Delaware could only have been known to him by prejudiced report, and he seems to have been entirely ignorant of the fact that some of the officers and most distinguished members of the American Philosophical Society had certified that the boat in question was not only successful and speedy, but an agreeable means of conveyance.

Among others who experimented in this country before the beginning of the present century, was Nicholas I. Rooseveldt, under the patronage of Livingston. It was for his benefit originally that Livingston procured, in 1798, a transfer of the rights of John Fitch, under the law of New York. When Livingston went to France, Rooseveldt was abandoned, and Fulton was taken in favor. The experiments of Rooseveldt were made with paddle­wheels.

In May, 1804, John Cox Stevens, who afterwards obtained in England a patent for a steam­boat, went from Hoboken to New York in a steam­boat propelled at the stern, and subsequently made an excursion of two or three miles up and down the river Hudson.

We now come to Robert Fulton; a man original in many things, but who, as the introducer of the steamboat, merely availed himself of the fruits of the labors and successes of the ingenious men in America and Europe who had toiled before him.

In 1785, Robert Fulton was living at Philadelphia. The (City Directory for that year has his name thus:

ROBERT FULTON, miniature painter, corner Of second and Walnut Street.

In the preface of this Directory, it is stated that the names were taken September, 1785. This was after Fitch's application to Congress, and after he had laid his drawings before the American Philosophical Society. How long Mr. Fulton remained in Philadelphia, is not specified by his biographers. A deed for a small farm, which he bought for the use of his mother, bears date May 6, 178G. After that time, Mr. Fulton removed his mother and her family to the property, which was in Washington County;y, Pennsylvania, at a considerable distance from her former residence in Lancaster. Having then visited the Warm Springs, Virginia, he returned to Philadelphia, and after some time went to England.' It is very probable, from 311 these circumstances, that Fulton did not leave the United States until some time in the fall of 178()ó long after Fitch's scheme had become well known, by application to Congress, and the legislatures of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, after the formation of the Steam­boat Company, and after the skiff steam­boat had been successfully tried on the Delaware. The experiments then made were notorious, and they could not have been disregarded by a person of Mr. Fulton's turn of mind.

The English writers declare that in 1801 Mr. Fulton visited Symington's boat on the Forth and Clyde Canal; that he introduced himself by name, and declared that he had a great curiosity to see the performance of the vessel. To gratify him, the boat was put in motion, and with Fulton on board, it was propelled from lock 16, four miles west, and returned to the starting­place. The speed was six miles an hour. Fulton took drawings of the machinery. This is declared in affidavits made by Robert Weir and Jacob Perkins.

Beside this assistance from Symington and Miller, it has been successfully shown that Fulton inspected an(l had possession of the drawings and papers of John Fitch, which were left with Aaron Vail in France.

Nathaniel Jutting, in a letter to Fernando Fairfax, gives the substance of a conversation with Mr. Vail on the subject. The latter, in speaking of Fitch and his experiments in the United States, said,

" Mr. Fitch came to France in pursuit of this object, but could Dot obtain the pecuniary aid required for his purpose; and after exhausting his patience, and the limited means at his disposal, he deposited his specifications and drawings in the hands of Mr. Vail, and quit the pursuit in France.

* * * * * *

" Mr. Vail further remarked that he himself was not sufficiently acquainted with mechanics 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 drawings of Mr.. Fitch, and they remained in his possession several Congas; and doubtless a man of Mr. Fulton's ingenuity would not fail to profit by any new and useful combination of the mechanical power that he might then discover, especially as he might suppose no one living Could convict him of the plagiarisms

Mr. John D. Dickinson, in a letter to William A. Duer, dated Troy, November 17,1818, says,

"I saw James Vail, who resided with his uncle, Aaron, at L'Orient, when chancellor Livingston arrived in France. He [James Vail] had often seen and examined Fitch's papers and designs about his steamboat. He had frequently heard the (:Chancellor and Aaron Vail conversing on the subject. He don't recollect seeing the papers shown to Livingston, but has no doubt they were." l

In reference to this matter, Noah Webster, the distinguished lexicographer, in a letter to R. W. Griswold, dated December 18, 1839, said,

"About that time [after Fitch's experiments on the Delaware the company aiding Sir. Fitch sent him to France, at the request of Aaron Vail, our Consul at L'Orient, who was one of the Company. But this was when France began to be agitated by the revolution, and nothing in favour of Mr. Fitch was accomplished. He therefore returned. Mr. Vail afterward presented to Mr. Sutton for examination the papers of Jar. Fetch, containing his scheme for steam navigatton.''l

Armed, thus, with the plans of Fitch, Symington, and Cartwright, and aided by the instruction of Chancellor Livingston as to what he had himself learned of the boat of Morey, of Fitch on the Collect, New York, of Rooseveldt, and of Stevens on the Hudson, Mr. Fulton commenced experiments, in 1808, on his original invention at Plombieres.

Afterwards, procuring a steam­engine of James Watt, the great improver of these machines, and adapting all the improvements made by others, he succeeded in propelling the Clermont, on the Hudson, ill 1807, at the rate of four miles an hour.

The extent of his claims as an original inventor are thus concisely summed up by Mr. Wooderoft.

" He had a cylinder, with steam acting on each side of the piston, the air pump, and detached condenser (Watt's invention), connecting rods, and cranks, to obtain a rotary motion, and a fly wheel, to get over the dead point (Pickand's invention) improved paddle wheels (bliller's invention), and the combination of these instruments together for the first time (Symington's invention) In fact, if these inventions, separate or as a combination, were removed out of Fulton's Boat, nothing would be left but the hu11."2

Robert Fulton had what John Fitch had notó a rich, enthusiastic, liberal, influential patron. .Chancellor Livingston was willing to put up with a boat going at the rate of five miles an hour; Fitch's Company were dissatisfied with one which progressed seven and eight miles in the same time. Fulton had the very best machinery that could be made in Europe; Fitch made his own, by the aid of common blacksmiths, roughly, and had to experiment as he went on, to discover the relative positions and influences of the various parts of the engine and rowing apparatus upon each other. Fulton began after years wasted by other men in trials by which he profited; and, appropriating to himself the principles made manifest by the results of their toils, disappointments, and losses, is now held out to the world as the original inventor of steam­boats. Against such rank injustice, the facts set forth in these pages will continually protest.

We have said that John Fitch procured a law from the State of New York, protecting him in his invention of the steam­boat. In 1798, application was made to the Legislature of that State by Robert R. Livingston, representing that himself and others associated with him had gone to great expense in making experiments upon steam­boats, but were hindered from prosecuting them by the previous law, giving special rights to John Fitch for fourteen years. It was suggested that Fitch was dead, or that he had left the commonwealth, and that it would be for the public advantage to repeal the law. Under these representations, the Assembly of New York repealed the act in favor of Fitch, and transferred all the rights granted therein to Livingston and his associates for the term of twenty years, upon condition that they should in two years build a boat to progress by steam not less than four miles an hour. This condition was not complied with; and the law was extended from time to time, until Fulton fulfilled the terms by navigating the Clermont to Albany in 1807;2 the privileges having also been so extended that the law had then seventeen years to run.

Fulton and Livingston did not attempt to obtain a patent from the United States as soon as they had shown the practicability of the Clermont. Probably thinking that the act originally passed in favor of Fitch in the State of New York, which had been appropriated to their use, was better, they made such a monopoly under it that opposition was interposed by those who were interested in navigation. Under the patent­law, in proceedings for infringement, Messrs. Fulton and Livingston would have been compelled to submit the originality of their invention to the law, and to be satisfied with such damages as might be allowed them. But under the Fitch law, they were empowered to seize and forfeit any boat impelled by the power of Hire and steam, without their license, no matter in what manner those forces were applied, together with one hundred dollars penalty for every infraction.

The originality of Fulton was disputed; but, armed with the powers of the statute, he and his associates fought stoutly against all opposition. As early as 1810, a company was formed at Albany, to run a line of steamboats to New York. Livingston and Fulton applied to the Chancellor of the State for an injunction against those who were interested in the scheme. The Chancellor refused to grant the application, declaring that the law was invalid, being superseded by the patent­laws of the United States. This decision was reversed in the Court of Errors. The claimants under the Fitch law were not satisfied with the triumph thus gained, and they procured from a pliant Legislature the passage of an act making it obligatory on the Chancellor to grant an injunction whenever the claimants under the steam­boat Act required it. The dispute would probably have been taken to the Courts of the Ignited States, but Fulton and Livingston were too wise to risk the chances of such an arbitrament. They compromised with the Albany Company, and gave them full license to run their steam­boats on Lake Champlain.

The people of New Jersey found the New York statute particularly onerous, as it precluded them from navigating the Hudson, a boundary of their own State. Laws were therefore passed to retaliate against Livingston, Fulton, and the New York steam­boat owners. Foremost among their opponents was Colonel Aaron Ogden, of Elizabethtown, who owned an ancient ferry between that place and New York city. He procured a steam­boat, to be built after the plan of Daniel Dod, and his effort caused a very bitter controversy. In 1815, application was made to the Legislature of New Jersey, by Fulton and his associates, to repeal the law which was passed in retaliation against the New York statute. Colonel Ogden and others strongly opposed it. Testimony was given by John Wilson, Mr. Ewing, Captain Deklyn, and Nathan Wright, in relation to the steam­boat of Fitch. The matter v as discussed before the Legislature by Thomas Addis Emmett on the part of the New York petitioners, and by Samuel L. Southard, Joseph Hopkinson, and Colonel Ogden, on the other side.

The MS. journals of John Fitch were before the Legislature. They are spoken of several times in the sketch of " the steam­boat case," published at Trenton in 1815. Reference is made to peculiar language of Fitch, which is found in his manuscripts as they are in the PhiladelphiaLibrary. The minutes of the Directors of the Company do not refer to this matter in any way. It is impossible, however, to resist the belief that, although the thirty years specified by Fitch had not elapsed, the seals were broken and the manuscripts used. They must have been immediately resealed and returned to the Library, as the Directors of 1823 seem to have been ignorant of the fact that the original enclosure had ever been opened. It is proper to say that the letter of Fitch to the Librarian, in 1792, gave full authority to break the seals whenever, in the opinion of the Directors, it was deemed proper to do so for the maintenance of his reputation and rightful claims. Although this act was informal, those who did it were carrying out the true spirit of the trust, in thus permitting the papers of Fitch to vindicate his claims against " some other man," who was trying to " obtain fame and honor " from his " invention."

The matter was eventually made a subject of party discipline; and under that pressure, the law vindicating the rights of New Jersey was repealed.

This circumstance nerved Colonel Ogden to fresh exertions An administrator to John Fitch was raised in New Jersey, who sold to Colonel Ogden all the rights of the deceased in the steam­boat, it is said, for ten dollars. The whole affair was manifestly illegal. The old Steamboat Company owned the patent, and Fitch at his death had no interest therein except as a shareholder. In addition to that, whatever property he may have had in the invention belonged to the legatees under his will. These matters were not canvassed by Ogden's opponents, and the movement served its purpose to strengthen the claim of the enemies of Fulton. Application was soon made by Colonel Ogden, as a citizen of New Jersey, and as the representative of John Fitch, to the Legislature of New York, requesting that the obnoxious law should be repealed. The memorial was referred to a Committee, of which William A. Duer was Chairman. Eulton and Livingston were represented by Cadwalader D. Colden and Thomas Addis Emmett. The evidence before this Committee was somewhat like that given before the Legislature of New Jersey. In addition, Governor Bloomfield, of New Jersey, testified that he had frequently been a passenger in Fitch's boat on the Delaware. After investigation, the Committee reported in favor of a repeal of the law, on the grounds that " the steam­boat of Robert Fulton was, in substance, the invention patented by John Fitch in 1791 ;" that the patent to Fitch had expired, and that any citizen of the United States had a right to make use of the discovery.

The Committee, in justification of this opinion, declared that,

" In Fitch's boat, the cranks of the axle beam were connected with a frame, from which paddles were suspended perpendicularly, acting on an elliptical line in the water; whilst in Fulton's, the axle Yeas attached to a vertical wheel, with paddles or buckets firmly fixed in the periphery. In both the motion of the axis itself was rotatory."

After the death of Mr. Fulton, his counsel, Mr. Colden, wrote his biography, and alluded to the report of the Committee of the Legislature of New York in terms which seemed to be colored by the zeal of the advocate rather than by the impartial spirit of the historian. To the attack thus made, Mr. Duer, who had been chairman of that Committee, published an answer, which was printed in Albany, in 1817, entitled, "A Letter addressed to Cadvralader D. Colden."

In 1818, Mr. Colden published a reply, entitled," A Vindication, by Cadwalader D. Colden, of the Steam­boat Right," etc.

Mr. Daer followed, in 1819, by "A Reply to a. D. Colden's Vindication," etc.

For the sake of convenience when referring to them, we have spoken of these as Duer's first and second letters to Colden, and as Colden's reply to Duer. In these publications the whole matter was discussed, and additional evidence was brought forward by Mr. Duer to sustain the claims of John Fitch.

The Legislature of New York refused to adopt the report of the Committee against the validity of the act relied upon by Fulton. Colonel Ogden would probably have contested the matter further, but he, too, was brought over to the adverse interest. The claimants under Fulton Compromised with him, as they had done with the Albany Company, and he also run his boats from Elizabethtown to New York under the banner of the monopoly.

Some time afterward, one Thomas Gibbons came to Elizabethtown, New Jersey, and purchased an interest in an ancient ferry to New York. He resolved to employ steamboats; and, oddly enough, his right to do so was contested by Colonel Ogden, the owner of a rival ferry, who now fought as stoutly for the Fulton and Livingston claimants as he had formerly battled against them. Gibbons was armed with legal opinions that the New York law was unconstitutional, and he resolved to contest its validity to the uttermost.'

The controversy was at length taken into the courts, and some lawsuits which arose under it will be found reported in the cases, Gibbons vs. Ogden, 1 Halstead 285, 2 Halstead 122, 3 Halstead 288, 2 Southard 161, 6 Wheaton 448, 9 Wheaton 1.

Finally, the question was authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court of the United States: 9 Wheaton, page 1. It was declared that the power of regulating commerce, given by the Constitution of the United States, included in it the right to regulate navigation; and that the law of New York was unconstitutional, so far as it prohibited vessels licensed according to the laws of the United States from carrying on a coasting trade, and from navigating those waters by fire or steam. With this decision the monopoly under the State law fell, and Fulton and Livingston were compelled to rely upon their patent obtained in 1811.