While the author was engaged in collecting materials for this work, he requested a friend to address a letter to George Tibbits, Esq. of Troy, who was an active member of the legislature, at the moment the most important canal laws were enacted, for such facts as might be in his power to furnish, particularly upon the subject of the measures of finance, in which Mr. Tibbits, it is well known, took an active part. In reply to that request, Mr. Tibbits wrote an interesting communication, which was subsequently placed in the author’s hands for his private information. Although it was manifestly written without the remotest idea of its publication, it seems too valuable to be lost; the author has therefore determined to preserve a large extract from this communication, in the present collection of historical documents. He trusts the highly respectable writer of the letter will excuse the liberty taken therewith, inasmuch as, after this explanation, not the slightest imputation of egotism or vanity can rest upon him.

--------------------

Extract of a letter from the Hon. George Tibbits, to Benjamin Tibbits, Esq.

TROY, June 13th, 1828.

I feel myself very much indebted to Dr. Hosack, for his friendly inquiries in regard to the part which it fell to my lot to perform towards advancing the construction of our canals, and for his suggesting to you, that a correspondence with him on this subject would be acceptable.

Navigable communications between the Hudson and the great lakes, were subjects of great solicitude from a very early day. And for their advancement our firm, your father and myself, became stockholders to the extent of our means, in the old Champlain Joint Stock Company, which proved a total loss. The magnitude of these undertakings discouraged all individual efforts. Nothing short of the power of the state, or the United States, seemed equal to the task; and these impressions were generally entertained long before the incipient steps of 1808, 10, 11, 12, and 16 were taken. But the mode and manner in which the strength of government should be applied, became a subject of equally great interest and solicitude. In common with all the other advocates of the proposed canals, they became with me the subjects of frequent discussions in private and public circles, and in the public prints, always advocating the general principle to be carried into effect by almost any means, though it would be uncandid in me not to admit my decided opposition to the mode of finance adopted in the act of 19^th June, 1812; viz. that of authorising the commissioners to borrow five millions on the general credit of the state; and this sum to be vested in some sort of stock at their discretion, to be from time to time sold and applied to the construction of the canals. The mass of the community soon became divided into two sections, those advocating, and those opposing the construction of the canals by the state, and the line of division mainly that of private or local interest. Those opposing were the southern and middle counties, including Delaware and the eastern parts of Rensselaer and Washington counties, with parts of Saratoga, Montgomery, and Schoharie. The general allegations of those opposed were, that they were not to be benefited, but probably injured by the canals if the state should succeed in making them. That if completed, they would let in the products of the illimitable regions of the west, and reduce the price of their agricultural commodities. That in fixing on places of residence, some had gone west, and become the proprietors of townships at the same price which others had paid for farms near the Hudson. That it was unjust to tax the latter to make canals for raising the price of the former. That if the west and north wanted better roads and canals, it was for them to be at the expense of their construction, and not for those who did not want them, but were to be injured by them, and protested stoutly against any additional taxes on the increase of the state debt, thereby mortgaging their farms near the Hudson, to make canals which could not be of any benefit to them, and none other but the west and north. The law of 1812, as soon as generally known, became the subject of altercation, and was soon repealed.

If I am entitled to any credit more than other zealous advocates for the canals, it is for efforts which proved successful in allaying these difficulties. Having had the honour of serving on the two joint committees on canals for the years 1816 and 1817, I took the liberty of submitting my views to the committee of 1816. Before the session of 1817, I prepared and digested a project of finance. It was that of constituting a fund of money income, to be denominated the Canal Fund, and applied exclusively to that purpose. It was presumed that the city of New-York (notwithstanding her representation opposed the canals,) must be more than compensated by them for the loss of the share of the auction duties which she had so long enjoyed, and which for one I should not have voted to take from her for any other purpose. That the west, who were the exclusive consumers of the salt made there, would consent to a heavy tax upon it rather than not have the canals. That some of the towns and counties who were conceded to he benefited, would consent to a small addition to their ordinary taxes; that the state could, without feeling or hardly knowing it, devote a section of its wild lands to this purpose; that a steam-boat passenger tax might, right or wrong, be imposed. These were estimated to produce annually about two hundred thousand dollars, exclusive of tolls on the canals, which, without borrowing any money on the general credit of the state, or this fund, would allow of the canals progressing slowly. But by allowing the commissioners to borrow annually upon the credit of this fund, a sum which, together with the nett income left after paying interest, should amount to 584,000 dollars, would allow them to progress rapidly, and leave a reasonable presumption that they would be completed in twelve years, estimating their cost at seven millions. The estimates when they came to be reported were less by the amount of about two millions, still it was thought best not to deduct any thing from the project, as they might cost much more. This project of finance with very long statements in figures, showing what would be its annual operation, with estimates of the probable annual additions to it from tolls end charges of interest payable from it, were submitted by me to Governor Clinton at a very early day of the session of 1817, with notes of the general principles of a bill, and with a request that he would give to them the most deliberate investigation and consideration, and that he would draw a bill to he reported by the committee conformable to them. The Governor heard me and took my budget, saying that he would examine it as soon as he had leisure: it was unavoidably voluminous. It appeared to me that he gave the preference to the project of 19^th June, 1812, as he spoke favourably of that project, but at the same time admitted the repugnance of public opinion to a large loan at first. Thought a loan for a less sum at first worth consideration; that New-York would resist any attempt to take away the auction duties; that the western counties would resist so large a tax as twelve and a half cents on salt –suggested six cents. I waited on him once afterwards to see if he had made any progress in drawing a bill; said he had not, but would devote some time to it soon.

Soon after my first interview with the Governor at the session of 1817, I submitted the project to the joint committee, and informed them of what I had done in regard to the Governor; they approved of the plan, but at the same time wished it to have the sanction of the Governor. At a succeeding meeting we met to consider a bill expected from the Governor, but got none; when we came to the understanding that Mr. Ford, chairman of the committee from the Assembly, should take my papers, and the next day draw a bill conformable to the principles suggested. The committee were to meet the next evening to consider it, but did not do so, but obtained from the Governor a bill which he reported to the Assembly without consulting the committee from the Senate. It was thought most strange that Mr. Ford should report a bill without submitting it to the committee on the part of the Senate. But the gentlemen of the committee, all I believe except myself, fearing lest any interference of theirs might prevent the passage of some bill, remained silent. I did no more than to give Mr. Ford, and the gentlemen of our committee, notice that I should not vote for the bill; that if his bill ever came to the Senate, which I thought it would not, I should offer a substitute. The Governor's bill was printed, and the Assembly went into committee upon it several times, when Wheeler Barnes, Esq. of the Assembly, from Oneida, with whom I had had frequent conversations on the subject, and to whom I had shown the papers, and as much of the bill as I had drawn, came to me and said the Assembly would never pass the Governor's bill, and asked me for the papers. With his assistance a bill was written out, which the next day he offered to the Assembly as a substitute for the bill then before the house: it was accepted, printed, and by large majorities passed both houses promptly. On motion I think of Mr. Duer, in the Assembly, the tax on towns and counties along the line of the canal, was changed for a tax on all lands lying within twenty-five miles of the canal; and in the Senate, on motion of Mr. Van Buren, the faith of the state was pledged for the redemption of the debt. For as the bill was drawn, and as it passed the Assembly, the faith of the state was only pledged for continuing the sources of income, and of the application of this income to the canals, and to the redemption of any loans which might be made on the credit of that income.

Reference may he had to many of the then members of the legislature for the general correctness of this statement. I name the Hon. Peter R. Livingston, to whom I have said nothing about it since, but who, I have no doubt, will recollect some of the several conversations which we had, and of my showing and explaining to him the papers containing this projét of finance, in the hope of doing away his objections against this great work being undertaken by the state. Also Samuel Young, Esq. one of the canal commissioners. I name especially, Wheeler Barnes, Esq. of Oneida, who lodged at Crittenden’s with me, and to a letter from him, which you will find in the appendix to the pamphlet which is herewith sent. I cannot now put my hand on any of the fugitive remarks of mine in the newspapers in regard to the canals previous their commencement, as I kept no copies or files of the papers. The twelve or thirteen numbers in the Troy Post, over the signature of Cato, were written long after, and after the middle sections from the Seneca River to the Mohawk had been completed. They were written to show the impolitic proceedings of the canal commissioners in pushing forward the construction of the one hundred and sixty odd miles of the Erie Canal west of the Seneca, before the eastern section and Champlain should be completed and brought together upon the Hudson, upon which very little was then doing, though upon their being so finished before the western section should be undertaken, and upon tolls expected from them, depended in a great degree the success of the fund, and its proving sufficient to complete the canals. The remarks of Cato being long after the commencement of the canals, are probably not within the purview intended to he taken of this subject by Dr. Hosack, and are therefore not sent.

Although I did not fall in with Governor Clinton's project of making the canals a common charge upon the state treasury, and of partial appropriations from time to time, nor in that of finishing the western section simultaneously with the eastern, still I consider Governor Clinton's efforts in preparing public opinion for this great work, and keeping up public feeling and opinion, worthy of all praise, and I have no doubt but that Dr. Hosack will do him the most ample justice.

In reading over the foregoing, I find that I have not pointed out the particular differences between the bill from Gov. Clinton reported by Mr. Ford, and the substitute for it offered by Mr. Barnes. But you will find several of them stated in the letter of Mr. Barnes, in the appendix of the pamphlet now sent.

----------------------------------------

Transcribed from the original text and html prepared by Bill Carr, last updated 5/30/99.