94 INTRODUCTION. 



1792, the commissioners adverted to the proposed connection of Lake Cham- 

 plain with the Hudson river, as one which would certainly tend to preserve bro- 

 therly affection in the great American family, and through the reciprocal advan- 

 tages it would afford to New- York and Vermont, would strengthen the bonds of 

 our union vdth the eastern states. 



On the nineteenth of June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the com- 

 missioners, and authorizing them to borrow money and deposit it in the treasury, 

 and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any measures to construct the canals. 



In the senate, James W. Wilkin, of Orange county, moved to reject the bill. 

 The motion was lost, fifteen to eleven. The assembly divided on the first section, 

 which contained the principle of the bill, and it was sustained by a vote of fifty- 

 one to forty-two. On its being returned to the senate, with an amendment, 

 Erastus Root, of Delaware, moved to postpone the consideration of the amend- 

 ment until the next session, which would have been equivalent to rejecting the 

 bill. This motion received thirteen votes, while sixteen were recorded against it 



From 1812 to 1815, the country suffered the calamities of war, and projects 

 of internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic efforts required 

 to maintain the national security and honor. But those plans were not altogether 

 forgotten, at least by those who distrusted their wisdom. Although there was 

 much incredulity in regard to the Erie canal, during all the period which we 

 have been considering, yet the design met little or no opposition, so long as it was 

 supposed that the necessary expenditures would be made by the federal govern- 

 ment. But a severe scrutiny was encountered, when it was avowed that the 

 means for accomplishing so large a work must be derived from taxation, or from 

 the use of the public credit. Erastus Root, in 1813, submitted a resolution, by 

 which the commissioners were to be called upon for a further report of their 

 proceedings. The commissioners, in their report in 1814, reaflfirmed their con- 

 fidence in the feasibility of the enterprise, and adverted to the facilities which 

 would be found for extending the communication to the valleys watered by the 

 Susquehannah and its branches, whence they inferred that Pennsylvania would, 



