of New York appropriated $800 to John Smith, or some other person, for the purpose of enabling him to construct a public road, leading from New York to the West; and the appropriation was coupled with the condition, that within two years from the time of the passage of the act, the beneficiaries should have constructed a road wide enough for two carriages to pass from Nyack, on the Hudson river, to Sterling Iron Works, a distance of about twenty miles; and should have cut away the limbs of the trees, so high up as to allow a carriage, with a calash top, to pass. That was the commencement of the internal-improvement system in the state of New York; which, after the lapse of more than one hundred and twenty years, has proceeded no further yet than to complete the Erie canal, and to open two railroads-one of which is completed, and the other nearly so-from New York to the mouth of Lake Erie. I regard this work, which is now under consideration here, as an extension of that system, and the whole as constituting a great national enterprise-a great national thoroughfare. With me, then, the question is, whether it is wise and expedient to devote the public lands for the accomplishment of this purpose; and if so, whether it is necessary for the public interest that this road should be made earlier than it would otherwise be by private capital. Now, if it be true, as I have said, that all the old states, owning lands within their borders, and having unlimited power to tax, have still found it difficult and embarrassing to prosecute these improvements, then it seems to me the case of new states is essentially harder, and more entitled to the consideration of the government; for it happens that these new states are founded upon territory belonging to the United States: the United States own the lands, and the government of the states cannot appropriate them. The government of the United States owns the lands, and they cannot be taxed except so far as they are sold; and these new members of the confederacy are tributaries to the federal government, deprived of the resources which the older states have enjoyed for the purpose of completing their public works. I think, therefore, that the government owes it to itself, and to the states, to make liberal, and at the same time judicious appropriations, to extend its net-work of railroads and canals over these new regions, where the people and the government are unable to construct the work themselves. And, if there were any apparent fallacy in this argument, I think I should never

theless be convinced of its soundness, by the fact, that all the new states which have undertaken to construct these necessary thoroughfares necessary not only for themselves, but for the whole country-necessary for the welfare and prosperity, and even for the existence of the Union-have all found themselves embarrassed and crippled, and many of them rendered bankrupt, by the attempt to accomplish objects which they were unable to accomplish, and which the federal government had ample power to carry into effect. It is thus that the character of the states has been affected. It is thus that the morality of the governments of the states has been impeached; and it has been done in the manner I have indicated, for the reason that it was devolved upon the governments of the states to make works of internal improvement, while the resources which were applicable to that object belonged altogether to the federal government.

Now, I do not know, but I trust that the day is far distant when we shall have occasion for any road for the purpose of military defence; but we can all see that the time may come, and we know not how soon it may be, when this and all our public roads may be required for military purposes. And if it be right in time of peace to prepare for war, then it is right to make these appropriations, which are, after all, most effective securities for peace by preventing war, and are most indispensable works of defence in case of actual war.

I hear it said that the government of the United States is a trustee. I do not find that the United States are even called by that title, or described as a trustee in regard to this property. It is indeed true, that in one sense, a general sense, the government is a trustee over these public lands; but in no other sense than that they are trustees of the exercise of their responsibilities of governing. It seems to be supposed that they are fiduciary trustees, that they have pecuniary trusts, and that their trusts consist in holding these lands until they can sell them at a certain price, and then selling at this price, and then by some process to make, as nearly as possible, an equal distribution of the avails among all the people of the United States, thus securing an equal individual benefit in the land to each individual citizen. Now, sir, I find no such limitation of the general powers of government, of the broad powers of the government over this domain. It is a power to hold it, a power to use it, a power to dispose of it, and to dispose

appointment of the policy of the government in fostering invention. The greatest and most useful inventions in that country were those which were continually defeated by reason of the application of technical rules and principles in the construction of patents. Arkwright's great invention, certainly one of the most beneficent inventions of any age, was lost to him for that

reason.

The same experience was encountered in the United States until the same period; and I believe it was a very general sentiment that the system of patent jurisprudence had signally failed. Shortly before that time a decision was made by Mr. Justice Thompson, at the Circuit, which was afterward affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, which permitted the amendment of letters patent by the correction of the specification when it was insufficient upon judicial investigation. The same principle was adopted in England in 1836, and in that way it was incorporated into the legislation of both countries. This is the law, as it now stands, for the reissue of letters patent.

About the same period a change came over the disposition and temper of judicial authorities in England and in the United States. Instead of encouraging technical objections to the defeat of meritorious patents, they have in both countries, since the date I have mentioned, adopted the principle of sustaining patents, as far as it could be done by liberal and fair interpretation. Nevertheless, I have had some little experience for some years in the professional duties relating to this subject; and that experience has left upon my mind this general conviction: that a worthless patent is never invaded; that of good patents, five out of eight are rendered worthless and unavailing by litigation; that there is no highly valuable patent which can reward the inventor within the term of fourteen years, because of the ruinous delays and expenses of litigation in maintaining it; and that, therefore, an extension of such patents becomes unavoidable to carry into effect the just policy of the government, while such extensions always operate harshly and severely in continuing a monopoly which is felt with much reason to be oppressive upon competitors in the arts.

Under these circumstances we have all seen-everybody has seen-that it would be desirable to modify our judicial system so that we should have but one proceeding whereby to test the valid