Gibbons v. Ogden, Law, and Society in the Early Republic

10: The Decline of the New York Steamboat Monopoly

CHAPTER 10 The Decline of the New York Steamboat Monopoly New Competitors I   of the Gibbons decision, the North River Steam Boat Company lost its most powerful weapon—the ability to legally enjoin out-of-state competitors from running steamboats in New York waters. Marshall, however, had primarily addressed congressional control of interstate commerce in his decision. Many monopoly supporters thus believed they might still control steamboat traffic that operated solely on the Hudson River. And even a limited monopoly could give the North River Company an edge in the lucrative Hudson River steamboat trade. Even if the monopoly failed in the long run, profits could still be made for the foreseeable future. At any rate, after a decade of struggle to preserve the monopoly, the employees and stockholders of the North River Company were not about to give in without a fight. In short order, more than twenty new steamboat lines sprang up in and around New York State. The day Marshall handed down his decision, former New York chancellor John Lansing and his business partner, Thomas Thayer, incorporated the Hudson River Steam Boat Company. In an obvious jab at the monopoly , the partners promised not to infringe on the rights of others to operate steamboats in state waters.₁ On March , Captain Elihu Bunker, now employed  by the Connecticut Steam Boat Company, piloted the United States into New York Harbor with streamers flying, and he was greeted with an enthusiastic response by local crowds.² The Connecticut Company then commenced regular steamboat service between New York City and New Haven, with fares at $ per passenger.³ A group of Connecticut businessmen meanwhile refurbished the steamboat Henry Eckford and negotiated to run stagecoaches from Providence to New Haven, where passengers would then embark by steamboat for New York City.⁴ The Fulton Steam Boat Company of New York City also resumed service to Providence, Rhode Island, and to New London and New Haven, Connecticut.₅ Thomas Gibbons’s elegant new steamboat, the Thistle, churned the waters between New Brunswick and New York City, despite the fact that several bystanders were injured when a cannon used to salute the voyage exploded. Competition quickly induced Gibbons to lower fares to .¢ per passenger and to provide free onboard meals to attract customers.₆ Defending Intrastate Commerce Gibbons v. Ogden resulted in renewed public pressure on New York authorities to repeal the steamboat monopoly. The Livingston family still wielded considerable influence in Albany, but state politics had changed drastically since the days of Robert R. Livingston. In , DeWitt Clinton used his support for the Erie Canal to win a special election and become New York governor. Clinton had initially been a political friend of the Livingston family, but his removal of Brockholst Livingston from the New York Council of Appointment in  had shattered their alliance. Clinton now harbored no affection for Robert L. Livingston and Edward P. Livingston, or for their monopoly. He proved to be a popular governor , but his use of political patronage and his obsession to complete his “big ditch” created enemies within his own party. Tammany Hall, a charitable organization in New York City that morphed into a political machine, quickly turned on Clinton. Similarly, State Senator Martin Van Buren helped form a statewide political coalition called the Bucktails to oppose the governor. Van Buren and the leaders of the Bucktails soon became known as the Albany Regency. In , Tammany and Bucktail leaders called for the creation of a new state constitution that would limit gubernatorial powers and provide for universal suffrage for white males. Clinton allied with New York’s remaining Federalists to oppose the measure. Chancellor Kent strongly opposed an extension of the vote, stating: “The men The Decline of the New York Steamboat Monopoly  of no property, together with the crowds of dependents connected with great manufacturing and commercial establishments, and the motley and undefinable population of crowded ports, may, perhaps, at some future day, under skillful management, predominate in the assembly; and yet we should be perfectly safe if no laws could pass without the free consent of the owners of the soil. That security we at present enjoy; and it is that security which I wish to retain.”⁷ Despite the chancellor’s best efforts, in January , New York voters, by a decisive majority, adopted a new constitution that limited terms for governors, abolished the councils of appointment and revision, removed property requirements for white men, and extended limited...