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