ment and use of war steamers may also be regarded as included in the consequences of Mr. Fulton's achievements.

The filial act of generously and judiciously providing for his mother and her children, when he was not beyond twenty-one, is a beautiful indication of his affectionate nature and of his prudence and good judgment, of his rightful sense of duty, of his capacity in early manhood.

In all his family relations in life, and in his social habits and conduct, he was not only exemplary, but kind, affectionate, and benevolent; in his manners and deportment, amiable, gentle, and cheerful; was pure in his thoughts, his impulses, and his motives; generous and upright in his dealings; pious in his meditations; patient and calm under disappointment, injury, and suffering; confiding and true and constant in his friendship; constant and true in his professions; confiding, frank, and undissembling in truth; enthusiastic in his attachments, and warm and enduring in his gratitude for kindness. His fidelity of friendship for his friend Benjamin West, for his friend Joel Barlow, for Chancellor Livingston, and others who were kind to him, attests the goodness of his nature.

How powerfully and beneficently was the patriotism of both Mr. Fulton and Mr. Livingston demonstrated by their determination to transfer the benefit of their discoveries to their native country, directing the first engine to be shipped to it, and here, in New York, making their inauguration of their great and wonder. ful success

In his deportment and address he was simple, modest, and prepossessing; in his intimate relations emphatically endearing. His wife and children adored him, and his friends admired, esteemed, and loved him. Indeed, love and esteem were naturally and inev itably the effects of his own virtues. His taste was refined, his emotions delicate, his heart warm and sensitive, his sagacity extreme, his industry incessant; and in the search for truth and knowledge he was devoted and indefatigable, and was fascinated with its attractions.

He, with a power to grasp and acquire opulence, was never rich, for all his realized gain he expended as fast as received in his pursuit of science, and in perfecting and extending his discoveries. In truth, he died possessed of only a moderate property, though in his lifetime he could and did command a fortune, a princely

fortune; but his habitual beneficence and generosity, and his love of science, removed money from his possession as fast as he obtained it; it never abided with him long

The enthusiasm of his friends-and they were of all ranks and ages, the humble as well as the high, the untutored as well as the learned, the simple-minded as well as the talented and the eminent; they were coextensive with a large portion of the world in numerous instances, as in that of Mr. Colden, Mr. Emmett, and Chancellor Livingston; of Joel Barlow and Benjamin West-had the semblance, really, of romance. They were fascinated by his genius, his virtues, his manners, and his nature. He won his way to every heart by his own extraordinary powers, and by his unselfish and excellent devotion to his humane propensities.

The advancement of civilization and intelligence among all mankind, the establishment of benevolent intercourse and friendly feelings among nations, the excercise of useful services to each other, and the discovery of the prompt and effectual means of mutual benefaction were the benign motives of this extraordinary man. He believed that the ultimate result of his discov. eries would be the security of peace and the aversion of discord, hostility, and war-indeed, their end-among all nations. Whether these views were well founded or not, they show the exalted and holy nature of the spirit which impelled him.

Wide and extended as now is his renown, as ages in future shall come and pass away, yet will his fame and his merit increase in appreciation; for only a few of what shall be the uses and consequences of his successful discoveries and appliances are yet known.

Is it, then, too much to consider his remains as part of the most precious jewels of the nation, appropriately placed in that holy cemetery, "Trinity Churchyard," the asylum, the final restingplace of so many of the virtuous, the good and the distinguished, the true and the renowned, for all ages?

Various movements have been suggested, and patronized to what has been deemed an encouraging extent, to erect a monu ment to his memory becoming to his character and becoming to the American nation; but all, thus far, have proved, as do too often the flattering invitations of hope, unsuccessful and fallacious. Another movement has recently been initiated to that end. It is due to the honor of the people of the United States, and their obligation to this great man's memory, that the attempt should not fail.

Singular Law Case.

A FABLE drawn by Shakespear's luxuriant imagination and exhibited in his "Comedy of Errors," where he fancies two persons Antipholus of Ephesus and Antipholus of Syracuse, with two Dromios, their servants, to be so precisely similar in appearance as to deceive their most intimate acquaintance, was actually verified in a judicial case which lately occurred in this city. As it has occasioned much conversation and excited much curiosity, we this morning publish a particular report of the trial, for which we are indebted to the politeness of one of the Court.

We are informed that this singular case has been the subject of two previous trials in the Justices' Court of this city. In one a non-suit stopped the proceedings, in the other the Court decided that he was not the person supposed, yet his accusers were so firm in their conviction of his identity that they pursued the affair to the present trial. This instance of resemblance may be recorded among the most extraordinary and astonishing ever known.

TRIAL FOR BIGAMY.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail delivery, held in the city of New York on 22d June, 1804. Present-The Hon. B. LIVINGSTON, Esq.

The prisoner was indicted for that he, Thomas Hoag, late of Haverstraw, in the county of Rockland, laborer, otherwise called Joseph Parker, now of the city of New York, cartman, on the

8th of May, 1797, at the said city of New York, was lawfully married to Susan Faesch, and the said Susan then and there had for a wife; and that the said Thomas, alias &c., &c., &c., afterward-to wit, on the 25th day of December, 1800-at the county of Rockland, his said wife being then in full life, feloniously did mårry, and to wife did take, one Catherine Secor, &c., &c., &c. To this the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Riker, District Attorney, prosecuted on the part of the People.

Washington Morton and Daniel D. Tompkins, Esqrs., were of counsel for prisoner.

The testimony in the cause was as follows:

The first marriage was admitted by the counsel for the prisoner to be as stated in the indictment, and that the wife was still alive.

ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION.

Benjamin Coe testified that he was one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in the county of Rockland; that he well knew the prisoner at the bar; that he came to Rockland in the beginning of September in the year 1800, and there passed by the name of Thomas Hoag; that there was a person with him who passed for his brother, but between those two persons there was no sort of resemblance; that the prisoner worked for the witness about a month, during which time he eat daily at witness's table, and he of course saw him daily; that on the 25th day of December, 1800, witness married the prisoner to one Catherine Secor; that witness is confident of the time, because he recollected that on that very day one of his own children was christened; that during all the time prisoner remained in Rockland county witness saw him continually; he was therefore as much satisfied that prisoner was Thomas Hoag as that himself was Benjamin Coe.

John Knapp testified that he knew the prisoner in 1800 and 1801; he was then in Rockland county and passed by the name of Thomas Hoag; that he saw him constantly for five months during the time the prisoner was at Rockland; that he was at prisoner's wedding; that Hoag had a scar under his foot; the way that witness knew it was: witness and Hoag were leaping together, and witness outleaped Hoag, upon which Hoag remarked that he could not leap as well as he formerly could before he had received a

wound in his foot by treading on a drawing knife; that Hoag then pulled off his shoes and showed witness the scar under his foot occasioned by that wound; the scar was very perceptible; witness was confident prisoner at the bar was Thomas Hoag.

Catharine Conklin (formerly Catharine Secor, but since married to one Conklin) testified that she became acquainted with prisoner in the beginning of September, 1800, when he came to Rockland; he then passed by the name of Thomas Hoag; that witness saw him constantly; that prisoner, shortly after their acquaintance, paid his addresses to her, and finally, on the 25th of December, married her; that he lived with her till the latter end of March, 1801, when he left her; that she did not see him again until two years after; that on the morning of his leaving her he appeared desirous of communicating something of importance to her, but was dissuaded from it by a person who was with him, and who passed for his brother; that Hoag, until his departure, was a kind, attentive, and affectionate husband; that she was as well convinced as she could possibly be of anything in this world that the prisoner at the bar was the person who married her by the name of Thomas Hoag; that she then thought him and still thinks him the handsomest man she ever saw.

(Here prosecutor rested the cause.)

Witness for prisoner:

Joseph Chadwick testified that he had been acquainted with the prisoner Joseph Parker a number of years; that witness resides in this city; is a rigger by trade; that prisoner worked in the employ of the witness a considerable time as a rigger; that prisoner began to work for witness in September, 1799, and continued to work for him until the spring of 1801; that during that period he saw him constantly; that it appeared from witness's books that Parker received money from witness for work which he had performed on the following days, viz.: On the 6th of October and 6th and 13th of December, 1800; on the 9th, 16th, and 28th of February, and 11th of March, 1801; that Parker lived from May, 1800, till some time in April, 1801, in a house in this city belonging to Captain Pelor; that during that period, and since, witness has been well acquainted with prisoner.

Isaac Ryckman testified that he was an inhabitant of this city; that he was well acquainted with Joseph Parker, the prisoner at the bar, and had known him a number of years; that wit