there were last session no fewer than 3916 petitioners against your Monopoly. The remedy is either to abbrogate it absolutely, or to mitigate the evil by resuming the principles of the national compact. No community in America, nor any individual American will, or ought to remain easy easy under any kind of op pression. The law applicable to the question between Monopolists and Patentees, is now so well understood, that I feel satisfied with the opinions of my own counsel. And the more to convince you thereof, I beg leave to annex a copy of those of a few gentlemen of own rank at the bar, lately obtained, for the satisfaction of a number of my friends, who have been a little intimidated by the terrors of your monstrous privilege. your The total unconstitutionality is maintained. But it must be conceded to you, on my part, that the Court of Errors has announced from the bench the limitation which they conceived to be consistent with the dignity of the State, the rights of patentees, and the respect due to the authority of the United States. You have thus altogether a full and perfect answer, by a body of law learning, greater than perhaps, on any one occasion, ever before concurred. And it loses nothing of its weight, that much of it was spontaneous. We are well aware that expositions of the principles of law, announced from the Bench, are not decisions, if only incidental to the question before the Court. But they are explicit of the principle that ought to govern on the occurrence of such other cases, though not to the exclusion of argument. In the case of Van Ingen, the right of a Patentee appeared so unquestionable, as to serve as an argument admitted on all sides against him. Nor can it be conceived that any thing new can arise to change opinions which settled a very important cause against him, and therefore in principle, in my favour. You accuse me of a want of candour in relation to Judge Kent's opinion on that occasion. It would scarcely lessen the weight of the conclusion, were it wholly relinquished to you :-Although delivered in a hesitating manner, it was in substance like the rest, if it meant any thing. But allow me to interpret the feeling that induced the half retraction that followed on the printing of the case. The law of 1819 was not yet passed. And in his extreme delicacy, I presume he foresaw the probability of patent cases, and by this very scruple, or fear of prejudice he proves the value of the annunciation from the bench. But there was no need of this scruple, as in consequence of that law, if we are to meet in a litigation, it must be in the Circuit Court of the United States, to which it gives immediate access. You are pleased to suppose I could arrogate to my personal influence the enactment of that important law. No Sir, believe me, it was the influence of oppression that procured it. More effectual protection of patentees was obviously needed. Gentlemen of the bar could recollect cases in which ingenuity had been defrauded of the national encouragement and reward. It was such men as Webster and Hopkinson, who provided the adequate remedy. The injunction of the Court now meets on the very borders of aggression, those who pirate on the property of authors and inventors. I shall never regret the personal sufferings of two unsuccessful winter campaigns in Albany, that led to my humble instrumentality in producing the perception that moved for this proper regard to that class of genius, so inadequately rewarded, and so immensely useful to every country. To the names of Watt and Wedgewood-Whitney and Whittemore, might be added hundreds who ought to rank as the benefactors of their country. For my own part it will be my pride and happiness to promote the success of such as may have improved the Steam Engine, in its application to navigation in the State of New York. ; One of the finest features of that law, is the power in equity with which it invests the Circuit Court. There is no conceivable case it will not reach. Heretofore infringement was only direct-by using the invention but by the equity side, we shall reach cases of indirect infringement. Time is a constituent part of a patent. If it be impeded, it is essentially infringed, and if done under the guise of authority in form, yet void in essence, it must leave those who act under it, to their personal responsibility. But I shall leave the consideration of this topick for the present, to you, who are eminent enough in the profession to interpret the law for yourself. But I will take the liberty to remark notwithstanding, in regard to your view of the law of 1819, in which you do not accord with other gentlemen of the bar, that the laws of Congress all relate to national objects, and are invariably under the cognizance of the Courts of the United States. The Judges even of the State Courts are bound by them, as the supreme law of the land. Such are the laws of Revenue and Patents. And it would be weak and absurd not to arm the Court with ample power to carry into immediate effect the benign and financial purposes of Government. With whatever propriety I might pray the Assembly to adopt the Doctrine of the Court of Errors, I do not feel it to be necessary. But as your letter and publication appear to have been calculated to make an impression upon the mind of that Honourable Body, unfavourable to my rights and my views, I may with propriety follow you thither without being myself a petitioner, to explain the one and correct the other. For however indifferent the Legislative Body of former periods may have been to interests supposed merely private, the time is come, when no subject is much more interesting than the policy and political economy, which belong to the internal commerce and navigation of the State. And it would be disrespectful to suppose that the reasoning of such men could be affected by the tribute of five thousand dollars a year, for the privilege of taxing the people for it annually fifty thou sand. A very brief and plain calculation will demonstrate the amount which the Monopoly will have cost the State, or that portion of the people who travel to and from the city of New York, over and above a liberal compensation for the passage. First, there was a period of about 10 years from the year 1798 to 1808, during which time there was sustained the incalculable injury of a total exclusion of all other enterprize in this branch of business, except Mr. Livingston's own, which was unsuccessful. The next 14 years, by the Comptroller's returns, averaged 20,000, and amounts at 2 dollars a head, to The ensuing 16 years will average 40,000 at least 640,000 passages, at 2 dollars, D. 500,000 1,280,000 D.1,780,000 Thus above 1,780,000 dollars will have been unnecessarily paid into the hands of the Monpolists, undeservedly, and wrongfully, over and above a fair compensation; unless the assertion of the rights of patentees shall save the last item. But a part, only, of the damage and effect of the views of Mr. Colden and his associates, could they be permitted to be realized, is thus exhibited. The north river company, being a Monopoly, is indeed most properly forbidden to carry freight. For this would be a monstrous exclusive privilege on the Hudson and Lakes. But still the Monopoly, pretends to prevent patentees from pursuing this branch of business, with all the improvements in economy which experiment and ingenuity, has hitherto pro duced. And why may not steam power be used on these waters, as well as on those of other states, for commercial transport? If the Monopoly could exclude patents, it would, on the most moderate calculation, cost the community as follows, viz: We assume with the intelligent author of the introduction to public documents, to whose great industry the best sources of information were open, that at least one million of tons will be conveyed annually and immediately through the state. Some well informed men with whom I have conversed, think it will be 2,000,000 tons, allowing then on Col. Haynes' estimate, a saving of 50 cents a ton, the amount is 500,000 dollars a year: which for the ensuing 15 years, or the end of the Monopoly, amounts to 7,500,000 dollars, (as much as the canal will cost) and perhaps from the rapid increase of the west, and the developement of the resources of the state, in the last five years, would amount to an absolute loss of ten millions of dollars, paid into yours and your friends' hands. Those who are familiar with the estimates of political economists, will not be surprised at such a result. And on whom does this tax fall, for the benefit of Monopoly? Upon the agriculturist, the manufacturer and mechanic: these constitute nine tenths of the population. The expense of transportation being a part of the first cost of every product, the price at which they sell, being governed by the market value; whatever the saving made in the expense of transportation, is saved to those classes: and they are also the great body of consumers, and whatever is unnecessarily paid, in the transport of merchandize, they eventually pay. The world might have rather expected, considering who compose the north river company, that a more enlightened and liberal policy would have been adopted, and better adapted to the times. Had Mr. Fulton been spared to the world, his discernment would D |