66 



Doc. No. 75. 



tern of policy pursued by the States of New York^ Pennsylvank, md 

 Ohio^ as admirably adapted to the exigencies of our own case. I have 

 pointed out in general terms the immense benefits the people of those 

 States have derived from the establishment of canals and railways^ con- 

 structed on borrowed capital; but^ inasmuch as it is almost impossible to- 

 give stability to arguments that are founded upon comparative deductions 

 without specifying data^ I shall now proceed to illustrate my positions in 

 such a way as cannot fail to produce ample conviction. I am certain 

 that these data have never presented themselves to the consideration of 

 our government. The diligence I have used in making myself ac- 

 quainted with them^ and the labor I have undergone in wading through 

 a large collection of documents^ in order to ferret out whatever had any 

 application to our case^ are compensated by the hope that my researches 

 will be found useful in enabling my countrymen to calculate with more 

 precision in matters atfecting the public welfare, and in conveying a just 

 conception of the line of policy pursued by those governments that rely 

 upon canals and railways as a source of revenue. 



As the Erie canal, in the State of New York, is the first work of this 

 character that Avas executed upon the plan suggested by Clinton , and as 

 the results of that experiment induced other States to adopt the same 

 principles which had formed the basis of Mr. Clinton's speculations, I 

 have devoted my attention to the investigation of all the facts connected 

 with the progress of the case, from the incipient stages of the under- 

 taking, when the project was first submitted for public consideration, 

 down to its final and successful execution. 1 deem it expedient, at this 

 juncture, to give a succinct historical sketch of that transaction, as it may 

 contribute to harmonize the opinions of our own legislators upon points 

 of the greatest possible importance, and prevent them from falling into 

 errors similar to those which characterized the discussions of the New 

 York legislature — the members of that body having not only evinced in 

 successive debates their utter inappreciation of Mr. Clinton's project, but 

 carried their infatuation and prejudices so far as to denounce it as the off- 

 spring of a distempered imagination. In the year 1810, the State of New 

 York was in a most pitiable condition: the public revenue was not suffi- 

 cient to defray the expenses of the government; agriculture and industry 

 were at a stand-still, because the lands on the seacost, having become 

 impoverished by incessant toil, could scarcely be made to yield, by dint 

 of hard labor, produce enough for immediate consumption. Tiie insecu- 

 rity which attended maritime commerce, in consequence of the war 

 which was raging on the continent of Europe, had so completely para- 

 lyzed the energies of the mercantile community that many importing 

 houses had failed. Such was the prospect of aftairs at that period. The 

 wants which pressed so strongly upon the people, made Mr. Clinton anx- ' 

 ious to devise some means comprehensive enough to instil fresh energies 

 into the State; and nothing seemed to him so likely to accomplish that ob- 

 ject as the construction of the Erie canal — a project which, although not 

 original in itself, suggested to him the idea of laying the foundation of fu- 

 ture prosperity upon its fruition. Through the influence of Mr. Clinton a 

 board of commissioners was formed in 1810, with the view of ascertaining 

 the practicabiUty of the canal, Mr. Clinton himself being appointed by the 

 legislature a member of the commission . Several examinations were made 

 during the 3^ear 1811^ which resulted in a report^ drawn up and prepared 



