whose beauty they touchingly described, was to be
abandoned for a "narrow, winding obstructed canal... for an expense which
arithmetic dares not approach." It was, in their minds, unquestionably
a selfish object, and they believed that "both correct science, and the
dictates of patriotism and philanthropy [should] lead to the adoption of
more liberal principles." It was a shortsighted object, "predicated on
the eternal adhesion of the Canadas to England." It would never give
satisfaction since trade would always ignore artificial and seek natural
routes. The attempting of such comparatively useless projects would
discourage worthy schemes, relax the bonds of Union, and depress the
national character. But though these Westerners thus misjudged the
possibilities of the Erie Canal, we must doff our hats to them for their
foresight in suggesting that, instead of aiding the Erie Canal, the
nation ought to build canals at Niagara Falls and Panama!

The War of 1812 suspended all talk of the canal, but the subject was
again brought up by Judge Platt in the autumn of 1816. With alacrity
strong men came to the aid of the measure. De Witt Clinton's Memorial of
1816 addressed to the State Legislature may well rank with Washington's
letter to Harrison in the documentary history of American commercial
development. It sums up the geographical position of New York with
reference to the Great Lakes and the Atlantic, her relationship to
the West and to Canada, the feasibility of the proposed route from an
engineering standpoint, the timeliness of the moment for such a work of
improvement, the value that the canal would give to the state lands of
the interior, and the trade that it would bring to the towns along its
pathway.

The Erie Canal was born in the Act of April 14, 1817, but the decision
of the Council of Revision, which held the power of veto, was in doubt.
An anecdote related by Judge Platt tends to prove that fear of
another war with England was the straw that broke the camel's back of
opposition. Acting-Governor Taylor, Chief Justice Thompson, Chancellor
Kent, Judge Yates, and Judge Platt composed the Council. The two first
named were open opponents of the measure; Kent, Yates, and Platt were
warm advocates of the project, but one of them doubted if the time was
ripe to undertake it.

Taylor opposed the canal on the ground that the late treaty with England
was a mere truce and that the resources of the State should be husban