General Morgan Lewis came into the senate in 1811, and then, and ever afterwards, gave his warm and decided support to the canal; and during the session of 1811, Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton were added to the board of canal commissioners, which brought a powerful reinforcement of talent and influence in aid of the contemplated work.

During the summer of 1811, the commissioners prosecuted their labours of surveys and levels; and in the course of a written correspondence between Mr. Morris, as president of the board, and myself, during the years 1811 and 1812, it was agreed that I should introduce a bill into the senate at the next session, authorising the canal commissioners to borrow five millions of dollars in Europe, on the credit of this state, as a fund for prosecuting the work. In the extra session of June, 1812, such a bill was accordingly introduced by me, and was carried into a law, by a small majority, in each house. But in consequence of the war between the United States and Great Britain, of which the duration and consequences could not be foreseen, the bold measure of borrowing five millions for the canal, was deemed inexpedient; and by a nearly unanimous consent of both houses, the law for that purpose was repealed in April 1814; and during the war, the projèt of the canal was utterly abandoned.

Soon after the war ended, a consultation was held between Mr. Clinton, Thomas Eddy, and myself, in the city of New-York, for the purpose of reviving the enterprise of the canal, and for organizing and animating its friends throughout the state. It was agreed that cards of invitation should be addressed to about one hundred gentlemen of that city, to meet at the City Hotel to consult on measures for that object. A meeting was held accordingly, at the City Hotel, in the autumn of 1815, of which William Bayard was chairman, and John Pintard was secretary. According to previous arrangement, an address was made to the meeting by myself, in which I endeavoured to show that the object was identified with the best interests of the state; and that the city of New-York was peculiarly interested in its accomplishment. In that address, I also pointed at the stupendous project of a canal, on an uninterrupted inclined plane, which had been unfortunately proposed in the first report of the commissioners, and I urged the expediency of a formal and public abandonment of that plan, for the simple mode (afterwards

adopted) of following the general surface of the country in its undulations. After discussion, a resolution was then passed, approving the object, and appointing a committee, consisting of De Witt Clinton, Thomas Eddy, Cadwallader D. Colden, and John Swartwout, to prepare and circulate a memorial to the legislature in favour of the Erie Canal. A memorial was drawn and published accorddingly. It was from the pen of Mr. Clinton, and evinced a perfect knowledge of the subject, with a sagacious discernment of its beneficial results to the state and to the nation. If Mr. Clinton had left no other evidence, that memorial alone is sufficient to entitle him to the character of an accomplished writer, an enlightened statesman, and a zealous patriot.

The friends of the canal throughout the state, rallied under the standard of that memorial, and meetings were soon after held in Albany, Utica, Geneva, Canandaigua, and Buffalo, to second and support the efforts of the meeting in New-York; and a vigorous impulse was given to the public mind in favour of the arduous enterprise.

Powerful and appalling obstacles, however, were presented, in the honest doubts and fears of many sensible and prudent men; in the rival and hostile local interests of various sections of the state; and in the political cabals, and personal hostility to Mr. Clinton, who had boldly identified himself with the canal, and staked his public character on the issue of the experiment. The leading advocates of the canal, were objects of ridicule throughout the United States: hallucination was the mildest epithet applied to them.

The year 1816 was employed in the examination of physical obstacles, and the modes of obviating or surmounting them; in conciliating public opinion in favour of the object, and in devising a system of finance, to meet the vast expenditures which it involved. The full force of Mr. Clinton's mind was

devotedly applied to these objects.

In April 1817, the first decisive act of the legislature. was passed for commencing the work. By this act, the commissioners were directed to make the middle section of the canal, from Seneca River to the Mohawk, and a suitable appropriation of funds was made for the purpose.

The bill passed each house by a very small majority. But after its passage through the senate and assembly, it was subjected to another severe ordeal in

the council of revision. Lieutenant-Governor Tayler, as acting Governor, was then president of the council, and had ever been distinguished as one of the ablest and most formidable opponents of the canal. The other attending members of the board were, Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Thompson, Judge Yates, and myself. After reading the bill, the president called on the chancellor for his opinion. Chancellor Kent said he had given very little attention to the subject; that it appeared to him like a gigantic project, which would require the wealth of the United States to accomplish it; that it had passed the legislature by small majorities, after a desperate struggle; and he thought it inexpedient to commit the state, in such a vast undertaking, until public opinion could be better united in its favour.

Chief Justice Thompson was next called on for his opinion. He said he cherished no hostility to the canal, and he would not inquire whether the bill had passed by large or small majorities, and as the legislature had agreed to the measure, he would be inclined to leave the responsibility with them; but, he said, the bill gave arbitrary powers to the commissioners over private rights, without those provisions and guards, which, in his opinion, the spirit of the constitution, and the public safety required; and he was therefore opposed to the bill.

Judge Yates was a decided friend of the canal, and voted for the bill. My heart and voice were ardently engaged in support of the measure, which now seemed at a fatal crisis.

The president of the council panted with honest zeal to strangle the infant Hercules at its birth, by his casting vote in the negative. A warm and animated discussion arose; and afterwards a more temperate and deliberate examination of the bill and its provisions, obviated in some measure, the objections of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice. Near the close of the debate, Vice-president Tompkins came into the council chamber, and took his seat familiarly among us. He joined in the argument, which was informal and desultory. He expressed a decided opinion against the bill; and among other reasons, he stated, that the late peace with Great Britain was a mere truce; that we should undoubtedly soon have a renewed war with that country; and that instead of wasting the credit and resources of the state, in this chimerical project, we ought immediately to employ all the revenue and credit of the

state, in providing preparing for war.

arsenals, arming the militia, erecting fortifications, and "Do you think so, sir?" said Chancellor Kent. "Yes, sir," was the reply; "England will never forgive us, for our victories on the land, and on the ocean and the lakes; and my word for it, we shall have another war with her, within two years." The Chancellor then rising from his seat, with great animation declared, "if we must have war, or have a canal, I am in favour of the canal, and I vote for this bill." His voice gave us the majority; and so the bill became a law.

If that bill had been rejected by the council, it could not have been carried by two-thirds of the senate and assembly; and from the personal hostility to Mr. Clinton, the great champion of the canal, combined with other causes of opposition, it is probable, that this magnificent enterprise could never since have obtained the sanction of the legislature. At no future period could the work have been accomplished at so small an expense of land, of water, and hydraulic privileges. Rival routes, and local interests, were daily increasing and combining against the projèt: and in my estimation, it was one of the chief grounds of merit in the advocates of the Erie Canal, that they seized on the very moment most proper and auspicious for that immortal work.

As to the subsequent measures and operations, till the successful completion of the Erie and Champlain Canals, with the firm, bold, and efficient support, uniformly given by Governor Clinton, they are matters of history and of public record.

Whether the early projectors adopted and pursued the means best calculated to promote and effectuate the object, the public must judge. My humble efforts have been rewarded, by seeing the great work accomplished with complete success: and I have also the proud satisfaction of reflecting, that my name has never appeared among the clamorous competitors for fame or public gratitude.

I have only to beg you, to excuse the egotism of this memoir. My apology is, that a compliance with your request, seemed to render it indispensable.

With great respect,

Your friend and obedient servant,

JONAS PLATT.

Dr. DAVID HOSACK.

NOTE.-P. 97.

Knowing that our learned countryman, Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill, had not only been the intimate and personal friend of the subject of this Memoir, as appears from his interesting eulogium, pronounced at the request of the Lyceum of Natural History, but had also been a member of the house of assembly of this state in the year 1810, during the memorable proceedings relative to canal navigation, I addressed a note to the Doctor, soliciting such information as he might possess upon that subject. In reply to this request, I have been favoured with the following communication, which contains some interesting particulars, and reflects no inconsiderable light upon the events to which it relates.

"Notices of certain events connected with the History of the Canal in the State of New-York, uniting the Hudson with Lake Erie. In a letter from Samuel L. Mitchill, late a member of the New-York Legislature, to David Hosack, author of a Discourse on De Witt Clinton."

DEAR SIR,

NEW-YORK, November 15th, 1828.

I remember to have made you an acknowledgment of the gratification I received from hearing your Discourse concerning the late Governor Clinton, on the 8th inst. After the circumstantial display you gave of the events relative to the great western canal, it was scarcely to be supposed that any additional research would have been expected. But, on receiving your verbal communication, and written request of the 10th, certain proceedings and doings were brought to my recollection, which I have now the pleasure of submitting to you. In my own opinion, they are calculated to throw strong light upon the subject.

After a service of eight years in congress, three in the house of representatives and five in the senate, including the time to the end of Mr. Jefferson's

administration. I returned home to the city of New-York in March 1809.