Ohio History Journal

16         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

most people conceive (from the emigration of foreigners, who will

have no particular predilection toward us, as well as from the re-

moval of our own citizens), will be the consequence of their having

found close connections with both or either of those, in a commercial

way? It needs not in my opinion the gift of Prophecy to foretell. The

Western settlers, (I speak now from my own observation), stand as

it were upon a pivot. The touch of a feather would turn them any

way." Again speaking of the proposed canal, he says, "The Western

inhabitants would do their part towards its execution." "Weak as they

are they would meet us at least half way."

The effect of this letter is almost immediate. The Potomac and

James Companies are formed, Washington being chosen President of

the former. The State of Virginia in recognition of Washington's ser-

vice, voted him shares in both companies, which he refused to accept

unless for educational purposes. He thus disposed of them in his will.

Work was begun in the Potomac and pressed vigorously but Wash-

ington is called once more by the larger necessities of the Nation from

the work so near his heart. The work was not a failure - it is living

to-day and ought to bring Washington close to the hearts of the

people of this eastern Mississippi valley. May we not then say that

the man to whom this section was a matter of anxious concern from

his earliest manhood to his latest years, who dreamed this scheme

of inland navigation, who planned the canal yet to be between Lake

Erie and Pittsburgh, who built the first grist mill west of the Alle-

ghenies, who first experimented with western Pennsylvania coal, may

well be called the Father of Pittsburgh and of inland navigation.

The third paper on the Monday afternoon program was by

Miss H. Dora Stecker of the University of Cincinnati.

 

 

 

CONSTRUCTING A NAVIGATION SYSTEM IN THE WEST.

 

BY H. DORA STECKER.

 

On account of the large scope of the subject, it has seemed pref-

erable to treat only a single incident in the early history of the steam-

boat in the west, that is, the endeavor of the Fulton and Livingston

interests to build up a system of navigation based on exclusive privi-

leges granted by states, similar to those given them by the state of

New York, and even this treatment must necessarily be brief and

desultory. Indeed, for a proper handling of this one phase, an introduc-

tion dealing with the origin of this system of state grants, with our

early patent law, and with the legal contests which arose therefrom,

• 1
 

Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual Meeting.            17

 

would have been advisable. The controversies over the right to un-

restricted navigation were carried to the state legislatures, and to Con-

gress, and were ultimately pronounced upon by the Supreme Court, in

the well known case of Gibbons vs. Ogden. The situation in the

west was adjusted much earlier than in the east, and in a way was

only its reflex.

Aside from constitutional and legal considerations, at the bottom

of any discussion of the steamboat should be its economic effects.

These probably constitute its prime importance.

Any of these phases of the subject would have more than filled

the time allotted to the speaker; hence the writer's limited treatment

of so large a topic.

Although the invention of the steamboat had been perfected pri-

marily with a view to the navigation of the Mississippi, the latter

river was only one link in a general system which was intended, by

the projectors, Messrs. Fulton and Livingston, to embrace the whole

country. In April of 1813 Fulton wrote Jefferson: "When peace re-

turns, or in four or five years from this date I shall have a line of

steamboats from Quebec to Mexico and to St. Mary's. The route is

up the St. Lawrence, over Lake Champlain, down the Hudson to

Brunswick, down the Delaware to Philadelphia, by land carriage to

Pittsburgh, down the Ohio and Mississippi, to Red River, up it to

above Natchitochez, the total land carriage about 500 miles, the other

route to St. Mary's, land carriage not more than 200 miles. The most

of these boats are now constructing."

In order to insure the permanency of such a system, it was con-

sidered advantageous, where possible, to obtain exclusive rights from

the different states, of entering their waters by steamboat. This practice

took its rise in the system which had prevailed among the individual

states, before the adoption of the Constitution, of rewarding inventors

or authors by letters patent, but after the formation of the new govern-

ment this function was considered as having passed into the hands of

Congress. However, in 1798, Chancellor Livingston, who later becomes

the colleague of the inventor Fulton, had revoked in his favor, by the

state of New York, an act of encouragement for the navigation of its

waters by steamboat, which had been granted eleven years before to

John Fitch, and which was considered inoperative on account of Fitch's

failure to produce a steamboat on the waters of New York, Subse-

quent acts, extending the time for completing a steam vessel and con-

taining penalties against the invasion of the privileges conferred, were

passed from time to time in favor of the Chancellor and his associates.

This procedure on the part of a state rendered a United States patent

of relative minor importance, as the state grant excluded from the

Vol. XXII - 2.

• 2
 

18         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

waters of the state concerned all boats driven by fire or steam except

those of the men for whose benefit the act had been passed.

Close upon the heels of the success of the Clermont, Fulton found

himself opposed on all sides, on the one hand by a group of older

inventors who had been working on the problem of the steamboat for

twenty years, notably John Stevens and William Thornton, and on the

other by a group of men who were anxious to compete with him in

a business rivalry on the Hudson and the other waters of New York.

To protect himself against the first, Fulton had taken out a United

States patent for his invention in February of 1809, although he was

here preceded by the Superintendent of the Patent Office himself, Dr.

William Thornton, an ardent and disappointed member of the old Fitch

company, which had built a steamboat for the Mississippi and had

made all preparations for establishing such navigation west of the

Alleghenies at the time of the opening of the Northwest territory.

Yet the New York grant afforded better security than the patent, as

the validity of Fulton's claim to his invention was challenged from

the first, and a bitter controversy engendered, due largely to the loose

methods then prevailing of issuing patents indiscriminately by the gov-

ernment and of then throwing the onus of the decision upon the courts.

The same privileges conferred by the state of New York were

undoubtedly desired from the other states, particularly from those in-

volving the western rivers. Indeed, even before the survey trip of

Mr. Roosevelt down the Mississippi in 1809, preliminary to building

the New Orleans, it was known that an effort would be made to have

the legislature of the Territory of Orleans grant exclusive rights for

the waters within its jurisdiction, thereby obtaining control of the ob-

jective point of all downward commerce-New Orleans; and in October

of 1808 Dr. Thornton, the bete noir of the Fulton Company, sent in a

letter of protest to the Collector of the Port at New Orleans on this

subject:

"I have lately heard," says he, "that Mr. Fulton and Mr.

Livingston of New York intend to apply for a Patent [i. e. a state

grant] to the Assembly of N. O. I have already a Patent in

conjunction with some others, from the United States & also

the King of Spain for the navigation of the Miss. with steam-

boats [Thornton was referring to the affairs of the Fitch Co.,

whose moving spirit he had been], but in consequence of alterations

made by the Co., in the apparatus, during my absence, the Scheme

was ruined, & I determined to wait until the Patent expired [this

in reference to Fitch's United States patent for his invention, con-

ferred in 1791]. I am desirous of establishing Boats to ascend the

Miss. I consider it against the laws of the Union for a State to

grant a Patent now to any Individual; but in consequence of the

Influence of these Gentlemen in the State of New York they have

• 3
 

Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual Meeting.            19

 

obtained a Patent there for 25 years, which though in my opinion

nugatory & inefficient, will certainly create disputes and tend to

lessen the competition so essential to the public good-Lest an at-

tempt be made to monopolize the Miss. also & thereby make ad-

venturers of small fortune afraid to risk an opposition, I am in-

duced to trouble you with a few lines to desire you to make the

Subject known immediately and defeat a measure so highly in-

jurious to the public. I beg you to urge a regular Protest against

and patent for Steamboats from the legislature of New Orleans.

If those gentlemen have invented anything new they can have a

Patent from the United States for the same for fourteen, not

twenty-five years, but knowing that it is not new they wish to

obtain exclusive rights from particular states, which, however, are

certainly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution."

Whether Thornton's letter at this particular time had its desired

effect is not evident, although the act referred to was not passed until

April of 1811; but no doubt the series of protests against granting this

type of monopoly which he poured into the various legislatures must

have borne fruit.

In regard to steamboat activities in the west, during Mr. Roose-

velt's survey of the river it was publicly advertised that two companies

would be formed by Messrs. Fulton and Livingston, one for the Ohio,

the other for the Mississippi, provided certain "indulgencies" were

granted; and during the session of 1809-10 petitions were presented to

both the legislatures of Ohio and Kentucky, which, after setting forth

the advantages resulting from steam navigation, requested that ex-

clusive rights, after the manner of those conferred by the state of

New   York, should be bestowed upon the petitioners.   In the Ohio

house a bill was favorably acted upon, and on the 26th of December,

1809, sent to the Senate for concurrence; but here it was voted down.

Thus one state expressed itself as opposed to this principle, however

advantageous the steamboat might prove to be. The following month

Mr. Breckenridge, in the Kentucky House, gave the report of the com-

mittee to whom the question had been referred, going over the situation

as follows:

"The petitioners state that they have discovered a certain method

of propelling boats by fire or steam; that their plan has been in actual

operation upon the waters of the state of New York for more than two

years, and their boat performs a voyage of 160 miles in 34 hours.

The petitioners represent that the difficulty and expense of this mode

of navigation is very great; and although they have obtained from the

congress of the United States a patent for their invention [this having

been only the February preceding], the time for its enjoyment is too

short. They propose they shall, within a given time, erect a boat or

• 4
 

20         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

boats, on the Ohio, or Mississippi rivers; that for the first boat so

erected, the legislature of this state shall extend to them its protection

for twenty years; and for every other boat five years, but in all not

to exceed thirty years. That their boat shall perform any given voyage,

on the Ohio, or Mississippi rivers, in one-third of the time that such

voyage is now usually performed by vessels navigating those waters,

and that their charge for freight shall be one third less than the present

general price for freight. The petitioners pray, for that for the viola-

tion of any of the immunities granted them by this state, the legislature

will impose certain penalties and forfeitures."

In regard to the foregoing statements the committee raised the

following questions:

1st. Would not the interference on the part of Kentucky in the

manner proposed infringe upon the power delegated to congress by

the constitution?

2. Would it be politic to grant such exclusive privilege for such

a length of time?

"Upon the first question," the report continues, "your committee

are clearly of the opinion that the constitution of the United States

prohibits the state legislatures upon such subjects and in a manner

contemplated by the petitioners.  By the constitution of the United

States Congress are invested with 'power to promote the progress of

science and useful arts, by securing for limited times, to authors and

inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'

* * * * The petitioners have, under the law, applied, and obtained

a patent for their invention, and the object of the petition is an exten-

tion, for more than double the time, for the enjoyment of the exclusive

rights, acquired by their patent. Your committee deems this unjust, and

contrary to the laws of the United States.

"Upon the second question your committee have but little hesita-

tion in declaring, that to grant the prayer of the petition would be

impolitic.

"At this time the chief part of our surplus produce and manu-

factures descends the Ohio and Mississippi rivers for a market. The

natural course of things would seem to require, that by the same channel

we should receive all the importations that are necessary for the con-

sumption of this [western] country. It is believed that this period

is not very distant. The importance of this species of commerce, to

the western people, is too great and too obvious to require comment.

It would therefore be dangerous and impolitic to invest a man or set

of men with the sole power of cramping, controlling, or directing the

most considerable part of the commerce of the country for so great

a period."  And so the petition was rejected.

Yet notwithstanding this failure to obtain exclusive control of

the Ohio, the Ohio Steamboat Navigation Company was organized, and

• 5
 

Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual Meeting.            21

 

preparations made for the construction of the New Orleans. At least

the Mississippi, with its vast tributaries, was still an object of prime

importance for control, and in August of this year, 1810, we are told

by Fulton, himself, petitions for such rights were sent to Governor

Claiborne, of Orleans Territory, to the Governor of Mississippi Terri-

tory, to the Governor of Upper Louisiana Territory, and to the Governor

of Tennessee. This would practically cover the remaining waters. In

a letter to Governor Howard, of Upper Louisiana Territory, it was

represented that a capital of $200,000 was required to extend navigation

on the Mississippi, for which subscriptions could not be raised unless

the subscribers were assured of adequate protection in their rights,

the patent law being inadequate. Appended to the petition was the

act which they desired passed in their favor. This request was laid

before the Territorial Legislature, but postponed, the only information

extant on the subject being a small marginal notation to this effect

on the original petition. Yet notwithstanding these widespread applica-

tions, they all ultimately failed of their purpose except that made to

the Territory of Orleans, or, as it was lager to become, the state of

Louisiana. In March, 1810, the inhabitants of this territory had ap-

plied for admission to the Union, and in the summer of this year

Governor Claiborne   found it necessary to proceed to  Washington.

Here he and the territorial delegate, Julien Poydras, one of the in-

fluential men of his district, were approached by friends of the steam-

boat measure, resulting in a visit by the Governor to the patentees in

New York. In consequence the petition was submitted to the legis-

lature of the Territory of Orleans, in the spring of the following year,

with the accompanying message:

"Gentlemen of the Legislative Council and of the House of Repre-

sentatives:

"I now lay before you the petition of Robert R. Livingston and

Robert Fulton, two distinguished citizens of the United States, praying

you to 'grant them the exclusive right to navigate the waters of this

Territory with boats moved by steam or fire,' on certain conditions.

Of the power of the Legislature to conform to the prayers of the

petitioners I have no doubt; but as to the expediency of doing so, you,

Gentlemen, can best determine. During my journey through the Middle

and Northern States, the past summer, I noticed with great pleasure

this new and useful mode of improving the navigation of our Rivers;

and I feel confident that the introduction of steamboats on the Missis-

sippi and its waters would greatly conduce to the convenience and

welfare of the Inhabitants of this Terr." In notifying the patentees

of the passage of the act desired, Claiborne assured them of his prompt

co-operation in promoting any measure essential to their security and

necessary to prevent intrusion upon their rights.

Not looking at the matter from a constitutional standpoint, it

• 6
 

22         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

was difficult for this district to let pass so splendid an opportunity for

facilitating the carrying trade of the whole west, holding, as it did, its

outlet. The attitude taken by Orleans was that this system promised

an immediate and adequate means of developing her resources, and

her waters were the gateway through which the other western states

must come. But the point was not well taken, for the Fulton Company,

with all its promise, was not able to put out enough steamboats on

the Ohio and Mississippi in order to exclude those men who were

willing to enter the field against them; and the effect of the Louisiana

act was merely to dwarf the revived commerce arising after the close

of the war of 1812. The Hudson at this time did not as yet have the

benefit of steam navigation for its freight-the sloop owners had com-

pelled the monopolists to confine themselves to passengers-but on the

Mississippi the situation was entirely different; and the attempt to

limit commercial intercourse to the five or six boats which were all

that had been built by the Fulton Company, at Pittsburgh, could only

have been futile.

It was evident that men were willing to try steam navigation in

these parts.  Independent builders were arising, and groups of men

along the river were willing to embark in the venture. In September,

1811, we find the petition of Oliver Evans, a pioneer steam engine

manufacturer of Philadelphia, before the legislature of Tennessee, point-

ing out that with a new mode of construction it was not necessary

to build boats of the costliness of the Fulton type. Indeed, Evans be-

gan a boat at Pittsburgh, which he was later to run on the Ohio.

When Mr. B. H. Latrobe, the successor to Mr. Roosevelt, arrived at

Pittsburgh, in the fall of 1813, to take charge of the affairs of the

Ohio Steamboat Navigation Company, he had to compete with a rival

company which had already begun work. This consisted mainly of

Quakers, we are told, centering about Brownsville, and they also had

adopted a cheaper type of building. Instead of the large sea vessel,

these men were putting out fragile, barge-shaped boats, of very small

tonnage, merely an adaptation of the crafts used on the western rivers,

which could run the year 'round, and a line, all the way from Browns-

ville to New Orleans was being established. Beginnings of independent

boat building were also arising at other quarters. Subscription papers

were passing along the towns on the Ohio; a company, under Dr. Ruble,

was being organized at Louisville; Oliver Evans had returned to the

field; and by 1816 the Gallatin Steamboat Company was incorporated

by the Legislature of Kentucky. In spite of the difficulties of getting

a boat together at any point outside of Pittsburgh, since in the west

steam machinery was as yet a negligible quantity, the hopes of the

various mercantile centers were running ahead of this drawback, and

the press was expatiating on the advantages to be derived by direct

importation by way of New Orleans, instead of over the mountains.

• 7
 

Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual Meeting.           23

 

When, in 1815, the "Enterprize" arrived from below, thereby demon-

strating that the river could be steamed as far as the falls of Ohio,

schemes burst into full blaze for severing the economic dependence of

the West on the merchants of the East, when the first of a series of

seizures of independent steamboats took place at New Orleans. After

the Battle of New Orleans the "Enterprize," on the eve of her de-

parture up the river, was seized by the representatives of the monopoly

on account of entering the waters of Louisiana without operating under

their license, and although Captain Shreve had given bail and was

allowed to depart with his vessel without waiting for the trial, this

procedure aroused great indignation. Efforts had been made to keep

these boats out of the Ohio by claims of infringement on the Fulton

type of boat, their points of resemblance, being merely the wheel. The

men who desired to build steamboats, particularly those constituting

the importing and exporting companies which were forming, were in-

timidated, in addition, by various patent claimants, who, in an attempt

to break the power of the New York monopoly, used this means to

attack it, and threatened, in common, with the monopolists, to prose-

cute all who did not operate under their various licenses. Thus the

westerners were placed between the fire of adopting any feasible type

of vessel, and of daring to enter the waters of Louisiana; and the

seizure of the "Enterprize" only added to the embarrassment. The

latter vessel, though but a fragile barge, by way of answer to her

seizure, made the first ascent of the Mississippi that had up to that

time been accomplished. Mass meetings were held at Louisville and

other points, and the legislatures of Ohio and Kentucky appealed to for

aid. Suggestions were made that the legislatures advance funds for

defending some one who would venture a test suit on patent rights,

or publicly aid in purchasing these rights from the real proprietors, so

that steam navigation should not be retarded. An importing company

had been formed at Cincinnati for direct importation from England,

and Congress had been asked to establish ports of entry at this point

and Louisville. In addition, Kentucky, declaring that its prosperity de-

pended upon exportation and importation by way of the Mississippi,

exempted all merchandise so imported from state taxation for five

years.

In February, 1816, the legislature of Ohio, in response to an appeal,

passed a resolution asking that their senators and representatives in

Congress exert their influence in obtaining a settlement of the con-

flicting claims set up by the various inventors, who had carried their

cause to Congress in an effort to prevent the Fulton patent from be-

ing renewed. In addition they were requested to institute an inquiry

as to whether the legislature of the Territory of Orleans had not ex-

ceeded their constitutional powers by enacting the state monopoly.

• 8
 

24         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

The situation over the patent rights was ludicrously described in

a local paper:

"You purchase of Fulton, Livingston prosecutes you. You pur-

chase of Livingston, Fulton prosecutes you. There you are, after being

chained and baited by their lawyers, to be again muzzled and worried

by Mr. Evans' standing, legitimate counsellors; and if you escape death,

or are not quite torn to pieces-at last my lord Fairfax, by his attorney,

Mr. Robinson, unkennels another pack, and should the poor adventurer

afterwards have a limb left, or a drop of blood to be sucked, ten to

one but Fitch himself would arise from the grave to annihilate him."

Timber for the building of a steamboat, this Cincinnati writer

complains, has been lying in the shipyard for months, and but for the

patent rights conflict, there would have been a boat plying between

Cincinnati, Louisville and Pittsburgh, but the owner was not fond

of lawsuits, and since the seizure of the "Enterprize" was waiting on

some action from the members in Congress.

In January, 1817, the legislature of Kentucky adopted a resolution

against the action of Louisiana which contained something of the old

tenor, when the Kentuckians were ready to march down upon the

Spaniards and demand by right of force the free navigation of the

river:

"Whereas," this resolution held forth, "the citizens of the United

States possess the inalienable right of navigating the great waters which

communicate with the ocean; and the high destiny to which the author

of nature seems to invite the peoples of these states depends upon the

security of that right from all violation, and the honor as well as

dignity of every state commands her to assert with vigilance the rights

of those subject to her sovereignty:

"1st. Be it therefore resolved by the general assembly of the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, That they have viewed with the deepest

concern, the violation of the right guaranteed by the federal constitu-

tion and the laws of Congress, to navigate the river Mississippi, in

the seizure of the steamboat "Enterprize," under the pretended authority

of a law enacted by the legislature of the late territory of Louisiana;

"2d. Resolved, That they will maintain inviolate by all legitimate

means the right of her citizens to navigate said river, and its tributary

streams;

"3rd. Resolved, That the government of Pennsylvania, Virginia,

Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana and Indiana, be respectfully requested to co-

operate with this, to prevent by appropriate means the recurrence of

an evil so much to be deprecated;

"4th. Resolved, That our senators and representatives in Congress

be requested to exert themselves to procure the adoption of such measure

as they may deem best calculated to secure the navigation of the said

river."

• 9
 

Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual Meeting.           25

 

Yet in Congress it was decided that the matter did not lie within

its province, but should be settled by a judicial inquiry.

On account of the outcry raised against the action of the monopoly,

a resolution was introduced into the Louisiana legislature to inquire

into the expediency of repealing the obnoxious measure. The report

of the committee of commerce and manufactures, embodying this in-

quiry, avoided the larger and more vital issue of the effect of this

act on the commerce of the country depending on the Mississippi, and

contented itself with recounting the benefits which steam navigation

had conferred on the state of Louisiana, particularly in the way of

reducing the price of freight between New Orleans and Natchez. "In-

deed," it said, "your committee, far from thinking it useful or necessary

to repeal the charter of the company, do, on the contrary, think they

ought to be encouraged by all possible means." They pointed out that

the west would draw its manufacturing products from the Atlantic

states exclusively through New Orleans, and that the surest means

to attain this end would be to encourage the company which would

best secure its success. Governor Claiborne, himself, published an open

letter narrating his connection with the whole affair; and as a corollary

to their report, the legislature, during the next month incorporated the

Atlantic Steam Coasting Company, for the purpose of establishing a

steam packet between New York and New Orleans. This company was

given the exclusive privilege of entering the Mississippi from sea by

steamboat, for a term of twenty years, it holding the right of entering

the waters of Louisiana by permission of the Fulton interests, which

were, no doubt, concerned in this establishment of a steam connection

with New York. Thus Louisiana meant to hold the key to the com-

merce of the west by both river and sea. Yet could this growing com-

merce be immediately accommodated by the new mode? "They talk of

an outlet for the western produce and the importation of foreign mer-

chandise to annihilate the connection with the Eastern cities," com-

plains a critic of the action of the Louisiana legislature in failing to

repeal the monopoly. When? Why, forsooth, when Livingston and

Fulton build boats enough in their own good time and pleasure to

accommodate the millions of subjects who would (if their grant hold

good) be dependent on them for the privilege of riding to New Orleans

in a steamboat."

Indeed this threat of severing the commercial dependence on the

Eastern states seemed valid, since the steamboat made it possible to

import by way of sea cheaper than across the mountains, thus obviating

the heavy cost of exchange. It was pointed out that the balance of

trade would be diverted into one's own section, for with the draining

of specie eastward, which had been the practice heretofore, the west

considered that as yet it had no merchants in the real sense-"only

mere packers of goods and of cash;" yet it was predicted that the

• 10
 

26         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

day would come when the scepter of empire would be swayed by

western hands. Indeed the utterances of the time indicate that a bitter

sectional feeling existed on account of the inability of the westerners

to supply themselves with the manufactured products that they needed.

They suspected that every internal improvement contemplated for their

parts was meant to divert their trade eastward. "It was not until the

moment that the steamboat of the Mississippi interfered with the East-

ern brethren and the Eastern brethren were alarmed for fear of losing

our trade," they said, that the Cumberland road was being finished.

Yet in unrestricted steam navigation they thought they saw a solution

of this undesirable state of dependence.  Indeed, it was predicted,

whenever the obstructions at the falls of the Ohio and the imposition

of the conflicting claims over patent rights were put an end to, freight

by steamboats to Pittsburgh would not exceed 2½ cents from New Or-

leans.

In the trial of the "Enterprize," which was held in 1816, the pre-

liminary advantage was lost by the members of the monopoly, it being

held by the lower court that the territorial legislature had exceeded its

authority in granting this privilege, but the case had been appealed.

Indeed, one of the fundamental provisions of the enabling act for ad-

mitting the territory as a state had been the insertion of an ordinance

into the constitution providing for free navigation. In the fall of the

year, Captain Shreve, who had been seized with the "Enterprize," de-

termined to fight out his cause, and brought down his new boat, the

Washington; but this, too, was seized. However, the court granted

Shreve the right to sue for damages in case his opponents lost their

cause, and with this decree the suit was withdrawn against him, also

the appeal which had been made from the decision regarding the "Enter-

prize." Yet the difficulty was not over. The whole controversy culmi-

nated in April of 1817, when a series of trials took place at New

Orleans which aroused the highest interest. Suits were brought against

the owners of the Washington, the Oliver Evans, and the Franklin, and

a forfeiture of the boats and $5,000 damages for each infringement

of the state right demanded. The cases were heard in open court, before

Judge Hall of the United States District Court, but unfortunately the

arguments have failed to come down to us. However, after hearing

both sides, Judge Hall handed down the decision that the court had

no jurisdiction in the matter and dismissed the petitions of the plaintiffs

with costs, practically throwing the victory with the independents, and

showing that the courts were out of sympathy with the measure. The

same decision was given in all three cases, and this practically solved

the question for the time being, although suit was again instituted against

the boat Constitution (formerly the Oliver Evans) in the fall of that

year. Although the action against the Constitution dragged on for some

time, we have no record of the freedom of navigation being interfered

• 11
 

Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual Meeting.           27

 

with after the first half of the year 1818, the state grant remaining on

the statute book a dead letter, and the whole matter receiving adjudica-

tion by the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in 1824, in the well

known case of Gibbons vs. Ogden. Even before the trials of April,

1817, boats had been springing up everywhere. By 1819, there were over

sixty in western waters, and from this period the west, with the changes

wrought by the introduction of the steamboat, may be said to have

entered upon her second stage of existence. The day of the licensed

company was over-and the period of free competition among steam-

boats inaugurated. What this meant in hastening internal improvement,

in stimulating domestic manufacture, in welding the west into an

economic unit, is another chapter in the history of the steamboat.

 

Monday evening was given over to a Waterways Meeting

under the auspices of the Historical Society of Western Penn-

sylvania, impromptu addresses being delivered by Mayor Magee

and Governor Tener. The main address of the evening was by

Col. John L. Vance.

 

 

OHIO RIVER IMPROVEMENT, AND LAKE ERIE AND

OHIO RIVER SHIP CANAL.

 

By JOHN L. VANCE.

 

Every step in the progress of the improvement of the Ohio River

has received the approval of the Congress and the recommendation

of the Engineers of the United States Army after careful surveys and

examinations of the river from its source to its mouth.

A special Board appointed under direct authority of Congress,

followed by the Board of Review--both boards composed of experi-

enced officers of recognized ability-made reports recommending the

improvement of the river by locks and movable dams to provide nine

feet of water.

In closing its official report, the Special Board said: "In view

of the enormous interests to be benefited by continuous navigation on

the Ohio River, and the great development which may be expected

from such increased facilities, the Board is of the opinion that the

Ohio River should be improved by means of locks and movable dams

to provide a depth of nine feet from Pittsburgh to Cairo."

And the Board of Review reported:

* * * "For these reasons the Board is of the opinion that the

improvement of the Ohio River by locks and movable dams so as to

• 12