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 with the eastern states. 
On the nineteenth of June, 1812, a law was enacted, reippointing 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. Buta 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, reifiirmed 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, 
