of New York State,
could hardly be expected to give a willing ear to a rival scheme, and
no one then seems to have dreamed that both canal and railway would
ultimately be needed. Livingston, however, was an enlightened statesman,
one of the ablest men of his day. He had played a prominent part in the
affairs of the Revolution and in the ratification of the Constitution;
had known Franklin and Washington and had negotiated with Napoleon the
Louisiana Purchase. His reply to Stevens is a good statement of the
objections to the railway, as seen at the time, and of the public
attitude towards it.

Robert R. Livingston to John Stevens

"Albany, 11th March, 1812.

"I did not, till yesterday, receive yours of the 5th of February; where
it has loitered on the road I am at a loss to say. I had before read
your very ingenious propositions as to the rail-way communication. I
fear, however, on mature reflection, that they will be liable to serious
objections, and ultimately more expensive than a canal. They must be
double, so as to prevent the danger of two such heavy bodies meeting.
The walls on which they are placed must at least be four feet below the
surface, and three above, and must be clamped with iron, and even then,
would hardly sustain so heavy a weight as you propose moving at the rate
of four miles an hour on wheels. As to wood, it would not last a week;
they must be covered with iron, and that too very thick and strong. The
means of stopping these heavy carriages without a great shock, and of
preventing them from running upon each other (for there would be many on
the road at once) would be very difficult. In case of accidental stops,
or the necessary stops to take wood and water &c many accidents would
happen. The carriage of condensed water would be very troublesome. Upon
the whole, I fear the expense would be much greater than that of canals,
without being so convenient."*

* John Stevens, "Documents Tending to Prove the Superior
Advantages of Rail-Ways and Steam-Carriages over Canal
Navigation" (1819). Reprinted in "The Magazine of History
with Notes and Queries", Extra Number 54 (1917).

Stevens, of course, could not convince the commissioners. "The
Communication from John Stevens, Esq.," was referred to a committee,
who reported in March: "That they have considered the said communication
with the attention due to a gentleman whose scientific researches and
knowledge of mechanical powe