Besides these considerations, which of themselves are sufficient to determine the propriety of hearing these cases at the present time, the late Commissioner of Patents fixed this time for these hearings with reference to the public interests therein, and is an additional reason why it should be adhered to, yet I should have no hesitation in postponing the hearing if it were made to appear that the public interest were likely in any way to be subserved by such postponement.

[Sidenote: Value and Importance of Hussey Inventions Fully Established]

The report of the Examiner leaves no doubt in my mind as to the novelty of each of the inventions which constitute the subject matter of the four patents for which the extensions are asked. His report is equally conclusive as to the utility of the inventions, their value and importance to the public, and as to the patentee's diligence in introducing them into public use, and his efforts to derive remuneration from their sale.

From a careful examination of all these points myself, I have arrived at the same conclusion as the Examiner.

[Sidenote: Opponents Contentions Not Proven by Facts]

The Counsel, Wm. N. Whitely, the opponent of these extensions have urged with great pertinacity that the inventions are not novel. They allege that the same thing existed before in Hiram Moore's "Big Harvester" in Michigan—the Ambler Machine in New York—the Nicholson Machine in Maryland—and the White and Hoyle Machines in Ohio. They also contend that the invention claimed in Patent No. 451 especially, is of no utility or value. On a careful review of all these points with the light of the Argument of Counsel, I am quite clear that the Examiners conclusion as to the novelty and utility of Hussey's invention are sound. The Moore or "Big Harvester" cutting apparatus, the testimony shows was designated for the performance of a different duty from Hussey's and could not without essential changes of construction, amounting to changes in its principle and mode of operation, be used for the same purposes as that of Hussey.

The Ambler machine had a straight edge cutter vibrating on arms through barbed or open slotted fingers. His Cutting apparatus lacked an essential element found in Hussey's the scalloped cutter, to say nothing of other material differences. This machine has nothing to impeach the novelty of Hussey's inventions. The Nicholson Model has no vibrating scalloped cutter which is one of the specific elements of Hussey's combination. The White machine as shown in the exhibit produced and which the testimony shows has been recently fabricated is not substantially the same combination claimed in patent No. 742. It has not like Hussey's a cutter with flush edges on both sides of the angle of the forks on the same side of the blade. The Hoyle Machine, according to Hoyle's own deposition, is subsequent in date to Hussey's invention.

[Sidenote: Utility of Hussey's Inventions]

It is contended by the opponents that the patent No. 451 has no utility or value. I am inclined to the opinion that the utility of the improvement specified in this patent is, of itself, small, compared with the improvements covered by the other patents of Hussey now before me, which are all of very great utility, and two of them indispensable in the present state of the art. Still since the novelty of the improvement claimed in No. 451, is admitted and is proven by the testimony of Henry B. Renwick to have some utility as one of this series of patents, I think it has sufficient utility to justify an extension.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Did Not Abandon His Invention]

The contestant's counsel have argued from the testimony of Lovegrove, that Hussey abandoned his inventions to the public by having them on sale more than two years before applying for a patent. The testimony does not sustain this point. Besides, an inventor does not abandon his invention to the public by constructing a machine embracing it, in the same factory where he makes and sells other machines. Nor by using it experimentally in such a factory or elsewheres. Nor by keeping it in such a factory from the autumn of one year to the harvest of the next year. Nor by doing all or any of these things more than two years before his application for a patent.

The statement of receipts and expenditures is unusually full and in detail, more so than is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the law.

There are two classes of expenditures and two corresponding classes of receipts, viz.:

1st. Expenditures and receipts on account of the manufacture and sale of Reapers and Mowing Machines embracing the patentee's improvements.

2nd. Expenditures and receipts on account of the sales of Patent rights and licenses, and compromise of infringements.

The Patentee manufactured and sold about 2,000 machines, and a few other articles at a cost of materials and labor $195,292.88 Shop and Tools 12,500.00 One-quarter of patentee's time and expenses 9,008.22 ___ $216,801.10

The receipts on account of the sale of these manufactures were:

Cash for Reapers $216,607.90 Cash for parts of Reapers 22,416.58 Notes and Book Accounts 11,388.23 Cash for Corn Crushers 1,135.25 Discount and Interest 2,327.84 ___ $253,875.80

The result of the manufacturing business is an excess of receipts over expenditures of $37,074.70. This statement, however, allows nothing for manufacturer's profits. An allowance for such profit ought to be made but in this case the object is to eliminate from the gross receipts such profits as have in any manner accrued from or by reason of the inventions claimed in the patents. Now receipts or profits that result from business talents or skill in manufacturing or in financeering are not receipts or profits in any manner accruing from or by reason of an invention. In the case of Seymour and Morgan vs. McCormick-Howards Reports Vol. 16 p. 480, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the ruling of Judge Nelson that the whole profits of the manufacture of Reaping machines in which one small part of the machines infringed a patent was to be considered as accruing from the use of the patented part was erroneous, and that a reasonable manufacturer's profit for the use of the Capital so, in addition to the actual cost of the machine must first be deducted from the gross receipts, and if then there was any excess, that might be assigned to patents. This decision I should deem binding and conclusive upon the subject even if I did not think that the values of business capital and talent are as fairly charges against the receipts of business as the values of a business house or tools.

[Sidenote: An Inadequate Profit]

In this case there is only an excess of $37,074.70 of the receipts over the expenditure or something less than 14 per cent upon the gross amount of sales. This is a very inadequate profit for manufacturing and selling, but it is all there is, and it is all that I can allow.

If the excess of the receipts over the expenditures had amounted to three times fourteen per cent, I should have had no hesitation in allowing the whole of it for manufacturer's profit, and should not have deemed it more than a reasonable allowance in view of the testimony of Long, which shows that his firm have made a profit of over fifty per cent after paying patent fees, on their manufacture of reapers.

It seems to be supposed from the reference which has been made to Commissioner Holt's decision in the case of McCormick's application for the extension of his patent of 1845, that he entertained views at variance with those I have expressed as to the justice of allowing manufacturer's profits as a part of the expenditure, and as an offset against the receipts, but a careful examination of that opinion will show clearly that Mr. Holt was not willing to allow a charge for the use of Capital, and for wear and tear of machines (which are the Constituent elements of a manufacturer's claim to allow for profit) and then, again allow a second or duplicate charge for the same things under the name of manufacturer's profits. This is the extent to which Mr. Holt goes, and I fully agree with him.

The expenditures on account of the patents and the sale of rights and licenses under the same are:

For three quarter of patentee's labor and expense $27,024.68

For sundry legal and traveling expenses 44,562.88 $71,587.56

The receipts on the same account are:

Cash for licenses, sale of rights, etc. $92,788.38

Notes and unsettled accounts 23,748.89 License fees estimated for 1861 10,000.00 ___ $126,537.27

showing that the receipts exceed the expenditures by $54,949.71 or $13,737.42 for each of the four patents.

This I can have no hesitation in pronouncing to be a totally inadequate compensation for inventions of such great value and importance.

After a most laborious examination and careful consideration of the whole matter, it appears to my full and entire satisfaction, having due regard to the public interest therein, that it is just and proper that the term of the said reissued patents No. 449, No. 451, No. 742, and No. 917 should severally be extended by reason of the patentee, without fault or neglect on his part, having failed to obtain from the use and sale of his said inventions a reasonable remuneration for the time, ingenuity and expense bestowed upon the same and the introduction thereof into use.

[Sidenote: Hussey's Inventions the Basis of all Reaper Manufacturers Profits]

The list of licenses under these patents show the acquiescence of the principal manufacturers in the justice of Hussey's claims. The list shows that the manufacturers of Reapers have made large profits, and that Hussey's improvements are the foundation of their success. It is certainly just and equitable that Hussey's heirs should be allowed to participate in the advantages of using his own inventions to an extent more nearly commensurate with the merits of those inventions.

[Sidenote: A Merited Tribute from the U.S. Patent Office]

The character of the opposition to these applications, in which but a single manufacturer has entered an appearance is such, as greatly strengthens this view, and I feel constrained to regard this tacit assent, of the great body of manufacturers to these applications for extension, an additional evidence of the soundness of my own conclusions. As it is also a fitting and merited tribute to Obed Hussey, now in his grave, for the invaluable contributions his genius and industry have made to the improvements of the age.

The said four patents, Nos. 449, 451, 742 and 917, are accordingly extended for the term of seven years from the 7th day of August, 1861.

S. T. SHUGERT, Acting Commissioner of Patents. United States Patent Office, Mar. 1, 1861.

A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES

And an Examination of the Claims for Priority of Invention

The object aimed at in this examination is to ascertain as far as reliable evidence within reach will establish the fact—and before the evidence may be lost—to whom belongs the credit of first rendering the Reaping and Mowing Machine a practical and available implement to the American farmer; not who theoretically invented a machine for the purpose, that may have worked an hour only, and very imperfectly for that short period, and was then laid aside; but who rendered it an operating and efficient machine that was proved by successive years in the harvest field, capable of doing its work, and doing it well; better than either the scythe or cradle.

The object is not to detract from the merits fairly claimed by any inventor; but it is to examine into some of the rival claims, furnish the evidence that has satisfied our own minds, and leave it for others to judge for themselves. We would not intentionally deprive an inventor of his often dearly bought and hard-earned fame—the creation of his own genius—for it is more prized than even fine gold by many. But it is equally just that merit should be acknowledged, and the meed of praise awarded, where it is honestly and fairly due; and to this end we propose and intend to examine into the evidence closely and critically. It may also be right to remark that we have no private or pecuniary interest whatever, in these, or any other patent claims.

[Sidenote: Attempts of the Ancients]

As to the theoretical portion of the business, the enquiry might be greatly extended; indeed for past centuries, as we have imperfect accounts of Reaping Machines being used by the Romans. If the ancients were successful in making a practical implement for Reaping, by horse, or ox power, as some ancient writers assert, we certainly have no correct and reliable account of a machine that would be considered efficient or useful at the present day; a machine to save or tear off the heads only—as described by Pliny and Palladius—would more properly be termed a gathering machine, and not at all suited to the wants and habits of modern farmers.



[Sidenote: English Endeavors]

It was not until near the close of the past, and within the present century, so far as we can learn, that the subject again claimed much attention of the inventive talent of either this, or foreign countries. Of some half a dozen or more attempts made in Great Britain, and recorded in Loudon's Encyclopedia of Agriculture, the Edinburg Encyclopedia, and other similar works, all, or nearly all, relied either upon scythes or cutters, with a rotary motion, or vibrating shears. And although there was "go ahead" about them in one sense of the term, as it was intended for the "cart to go before the horse," none of them appeared to have gained, or certainly not long retained, the confidence of the farmers; for at the exhibition of the "World's Fair in London," the whole Kingdom could not raise a Reaping Machine;—a practical implement which was considered worth using and exhibiting.

[Sidenote: English Failure]

That the idea was obsolete there, and had been unsuccessful, is clearly proved by the fact that the English journals and writers of that period, without a single exception, spoke of the American Reapers—after the trials!—as "completely successful"—"taking every one by surprise"—"their reaping machines have astonished our agriculturists"—"few subjects have created a greater sensation in the agricultural world than the recent introduction into the country of the reaping machines"—the "curiosity of the crowd was irrepressible to witness such a novelty, even to stopping the machine, and trampling the grain under foot," etc., etc.—Much more and similar evidence is at hand; but better need not be produced to prove the entire failure of reaping machines in Great Britain, as late as 1851. We would also refer the curious to Rees' Cyclopedia, for a very brief account of what had been effected;—a few paragraphs only are written on reaping machines, but several pages are compiled as to the use of the scythe, sickle or reap hook, and reaping fork. The Doctor refers to Plunknett's Machine by name, as being "somewhat on a new principle, the horse drawing the machine instead of pushing it forward as was the old mode of applying the power." The machine is fully represented in the Farmers' Dictionary; and he winds up the account as follows: "But the success with which they have been attended has hitherto been far from complete;" again, "Other machines of this kind have still more lately been invented by other persons [meaning of course his own countrymen] but without answering the purpose in that full and complete manner which is necessary in this sort of work."

The Doctor undertakes to tell us what is wanted, but fails entirely to inform his readers how to do it. That John Bull had not done it is clearly established; but Brother Jonathan, the "Live Yankee," as John calls his cousin, has solved the problem; and the solution is so simple, when you know how to do it! that it is marvelously strange no one for centuries had before struck upon the right key.

Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P. and F. R. S.—the chief manager of the London Exhibition—admits the failure, though apparently reluctantly; but the source of his information, in writing about the American machines, was interested and defective; and when he again writes on this subject he will be better informed. He says: "At the opening of this century it was thought that a successful reaping machine had been invented, and a reward had been voted by Parliament to its author. The machine was employed here and abroad, but from its intricacy, fell into disuse. Another has been lately devised in one of our Colonies, which cuts off the heads of the corn, but leaves the straw standing, a fatal defect in an old settled country, where the growth of corn is forced by the application of dung. Our farmers may well, therefore, have been astonished by an American implement which not only reaped the wheat, but performed the work with the neatness and certainty of an old and perfect machine. Its novelty of action reminded one of seeing the first engine run on the Liverpool and Manchester railway in 1830. Its perfection depended on its being new only in England; but in America the result of repeated disappointments and untired perseverance, etc."

[Sidenote: English Claims]

We propose to prove, and by better evidence, and disinterested too, than he then had, that in 1833, near the date of "the first engine run on the Liverpool and Manchester railway in 1830," the American machine cut the "corn" just as perfectly, with equal "neatness and certainty" as did the "Novelty" or "Rocket" pass over the Liverpool and Manchester railway. We shall again recur to English authority. John Bull is a right honest and clever old gentleman in the main; but he is rather prone to claim what he has no title for—inventions, as well as territory. We are willing to give him what he can show a clear deed for, but no more. He beat us by one year only in the Locomotive; but we fairly beat him eighteen or twenty in the Reaping Machine; and yet some of his writers contend to this day that we "pirated" from Bell and other English inventors all we know!

[Sidenote: English Inventors and Their Mistakes]

The excitement and sensation thus produced by the American Reapers, caused renewed efforts on the part of English inventors; some who had near a quarter of a century previously, been endeavoring to effect this "great desideratum," to use an English editorial; and the most conspicuous of these was one invented by the Rev. Patrick Bell, of Scotland. Of the half a score or more and previous inventors in Great Britain—Boyce, Plunknett, Gladstone of Castle Douglass, Salmon of Waburn, Smith of Deanston in Perthshire, etc., etc.—none were waked up from their Rip Van Winkle slumbers; or if they were, the world is not advised of it. They all used revolving scythes, revolving cutters, or shears instead. Several trials were made with Bell's in 1828 or 1829; and a very full and minute description with plates, was published some 24 or 25 years ago, and may be found in Loudon's Encyclopedia of Agriculture.

It was, however, too complicated, too cumbersome and expensive, performed too little service, and required too much tinkering and repairs to be viewed as a practical and available implement.—The English farmer found the sickle or reap hook preferable, for it was everywhere resorted to.—The cutting apparatus of Bell's consisted of shears, one half stationary, the other vibrating, and turning on the bolt that confined them to the iron bar which extends across the front of the frame. The vibrating motion was given by connecting the back end of one shear to a bar—making the bolt the fulcrum—and which was attached to a crank, revolving by gear to the driving wheels.

[Sidenote: Bell's Machine]

A reel was used to gather the grain to the shears, and adjustable, back and forth, and higher or lower, to suit the height of the grain. A revolving apron delivered the grain in a continuous swath; and the team was attached to the rear of the machine, pushing it through the grain.

We have been more minute in the description of Bell's machine, because it may have been the foundation of some of the early, and nearly simultaneous attempts made in this country. In fact it does not admit of doubt that several were nearly identical with Bell's in the use of the shears and reel, though with much more simple gearing, and in the general arrangement. Whether they were original inventions, cannot be ascertained. In this country, from 1800 to 1833 out of some 15 or 20 patents granted for "cutting grain" and "cutting grass," only four appear to have been "restored"; i.e. technically speaking, "not restored" in models and drawings after the burning of the Patent Office in 1836. Many, if not most of them, were probably improvements in the grain cradle, and mowing scythe; though the names are preserved, there is no record to show for what particulars the patents were granted. There can be no doubt, however, that the inventors considered them valueless, as they were "not restored," though Congress voted large sums to replace the burnt models and drawings, without any expense to the parties. Of those restored James Ten Eyck's patent is dated 1825, Wm. Manning's in 1831, Wm. & Thos. Schnebly's in 1833, and Obed Hussey's also in 1833.

James Ten Eyck used an open reel; not only to gather the grain, but his cutters or shears, were attached to, and revolved with the reel;—very much, if not exactly on the principle of shearing cloth.

William Manning used another form of cutters, and quite different from James Ten Eyck's—he likewise used fingers or teeth to support the grain during the action of the horizontal cutters.

William and Thomas Schnebly of Maryland also used the reel, with shears as cutters, very similar to Bell's.

Abraham Randall, or Rundell, of New York (for the name is spelled both ways), was another of the early inventors. His patent of 1835 is not restored, though it is stated his machine was experimented with as early as 1833 or 1834. He also used the reel, and his cutters, it is said, were similar to Bell's—using shears.

T. D. Burrall, of New York, was also one of the early inventors, about 1832 or 1833, but we believe professedly after Bell's, so far as to use a reel and shears.

[Sidenote: None Successful]

[Sidenote: Hussey's Machine an American Triumph]

None of these machines, however, Hussey's excepted, were successful, or were used any length of time; nor is it necessary here to refer particularly to other attempts, about this time, or indeed prior to this period, for they were equally unsuccessful; and their inventors cannot claim the merit of doing a thing, that was not in fact performed—making an efficient and successful Reaper. We may here remark, however, that so far as now known, no machine like Bell's, on the shear or scissor principle, has succeeded in this country; or as we believe, is ever likely to succeed. We have seen a number by different inventors, and all have failed to give satisfaction. They may work well for a very brief period and with keen edges; but as they become dull, the shears are forced apart by the straw and grass—particularly the latter, and the machine fails, as it inevitably must do, in its allotted duty, and for very obvious reasons. If the shear rivet or bolt is kept tight there is too much friction; if loose enough to play freely it is too loose to cut well; and, lastly, it is too liable to wear at the most important point of the whole machine. During the harvest of 1853 in England every effort was made to uphold Bell's machine; in some cases prizes were awarded to it, though evidently partial; for in the face of these awards some who witnessed the trials, and had used Bell's machines, laid them aside and purchased Hussey's. At the close of the season, as we learn from reliable authority, even the engineers who operated Bell's, frankly admitted that the American machine as exhibited by Hussey, was the better implement, owing to the arrangement of the guards and knives; Bell's required so much tinkering, that several machines were required to cope with one of Hussey's. At the recent harvest (1854) the Mark Lane Express acknowledges that the Royal Agricultural Societies' show at Lincoln, Bell's machine was "at last fairly beaten" by Hussey's, including McCormick's, and Hussey's machine received the prize over all others. It is just, however, to add, that far as we consider Bell's machine behind some of the present day, yet complex and cumbersome as it was, it combined more of the essential features of success than any Reaper that preceded it.



We now come to 1833, the date of Hussey's patent; and to 1834, the date of C. H. McCormick's first patent. These were known and admitted by all to have been the rivals for popular favor and patronage, from about the year 1844 or 1845 to the opening of the great Industrial Exhibition in London, in 1851. To these, therefore, the enquiry will be more particularly directed.

We must, however, refer back for a brief period to 1831; for although C. H. McCormick's first patent was dated in 1834, yet when he applied for his extension in 1848 he alleged that his invention was prior to Hussey's, as he had invented a machine in 1831, two years before the date of O. Hussey's, and three years before the date of his own patent. The evidence produced written and prepared by C. H. McCormick (and now on file in the Patent Office) was deemed inadmissible and informal by the Board, and it refused to go on with the examination either as to priority or validity of invention without notice to Hussey—his patent being called in question by McCormick—to be present when the depositions were taken.

[Sidenote: McCormick's Attempt to Get Hussey's Signature]

Before, however, receiving the official notice, he was called on by C. H. McCormick in Baltimore, and requested to sign a paper, agreeing or admitting, that the testimony he had himself prepared should be considered evidence—i.e. considered formal; alleging that it would save him trouble and expense in going to Virginia. This was declined by Hussey on the ground that he might thus unwittingly injure himself; he having previously applied for an extension of his own Patent. Neither was he then aware of the nature of this evidence; or until this interview, was he advised of C. H. McCormick's application for extension.

Hussey was subsequently duly notified by order of the Board to be present at taking the depositions in Augusta County, Virginia,—the Board having adjourned three weeks for that purpose.

Either just previous or subsequent to these proceedings the case was referred by the Commissioner of Patents, or Board of Extensions, to Dr. Page, one of the Examiners of the office.

His report is as follows:

"Patent Office,

"Jan. 22d, 1848.

"Sir:

"In compliance with your requisition I have examined the patent of Cyrus H. McCormick, dated 31st June, 1834, and found that the principal features embraced in said patent, viz, the cutting-knife and mode of operating it, the fingers to guide the grain and the revolving rack for gathering the grain, were not new at the time of granting said letters patent.

"The knife-fingers and general arrangements and operation of the cutting apparatus are found in the reaping machine of O. Hussey, patented 31st Dec., 1833.

"The revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its operation is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, patented 2nd November, 1825.

"Respectfully submitted,

"CHAS. G. PAGE, "Examiner.

"Hon. Edmund Burke, Com'r of Patents."

As some have enquired, and others may enquire, why a patent should issue under these circumstances, we reply, that previous to 1836 but little, if any, examination was made as to priority of inventions, or into preceding Patents; the applicant made oath as to his invention, and the patent was issued as a matter of course. And as another matter of course, if the rival interests clashed, litigation was the result:—the Courts and juries often decided what they little understood, and at times not at all, after the pleading of well fee'd lawyers; a pretty fair illustration of the fable of the boys and frogs; it may be fun for the lawyers but it is death to the hopes of many a poor patentee. We are, however, pleased to perceive a disposition manifested by the courts to sustain patents; even if occasionally an unjust claim is recognized as a valid one, it is better, according to the legal and moral maxim, that half a dozen rogues should escape punishment for a time, than that one innocent person should be unjustly convicted; the rogue is almost certain to be caught in the end, and truth will ultimately triumph.

[Sidenote: McCormick-Hussey Controversy]

This testimony was taken in due form at Steele's Tavern, Augusta County, Va., McCormick and Hussey both being present. It is too voluminous to copy entire, but we will refer briefly to each, having read them carefully, and obtained certified copies of all from the Patent office.

Dr. N. M. Hitt testified to a reaping machine being made by C. H. McCormick in 1831—it had a straight sickle blade.

William S. McCormick and Leander J. McCormick, brothers of C. H. McCormick, also testified to the making of a machine in 1831.

Mary McCormick, mother of C. H. McCormick, agreed in general with the testimony of her sons,—did not doubt but it was correct, "it appears familiar to me," but testified to nothing in particular.

[Sidenote: Testimony]

John Steele, Jr., was tavernkeeper at "Steele's Tavern," testified as to the year being 1831 or 1832. In his amended testimony, admitted that C. H. McCormick wrote the paper describing the machine for him to testify to; recollects little else about the machine than the straight sickle edge.

Eliza H. Steele refused to testify without first seeing a certificate previously signed by her; admitted that C. H. McCormick wrote it for her to sign; her testimony as to the year depended on the building of a certain house, on which the workmen put 1831.

John McCown—was a blacksmith—testified that he made the "straight sickle blade," and that it was "a long, straight sickle" blade.

This was most singular testimony to found a claim of priority of invention on, and by which to invalidate another man's patent. There was discrepancy in the evidence as to the year of the invention; also whether the machine was intended for one or two horses; how the "fingers" were arranged, and whether of wood or iron, above or below, the "straight sickle blade." Two of the brothers—one at least who helped to make, if not also to invent this machine—testified that the plan or arrangement of the machine here sworn to, was changed in 1840, 1841, 1842, or 1843, they did not know which; from 9 to 12 years afterwards!

John McCown swears positively that he helped to build the machine, so far at least as to forge "a long, straight sickle;" but neither he, or a single one of the seven sworn witnesses, "ladies and gentlemen," testify that the machine ever worked a single hour, or cut as much grain of any kind as would make a single sheaf![1]

[1] The reading of this testimony strongly reminds us of an anecdote related at the hustings in Virginia by that talented but eccentric character, John Randolph, of Roanoake, in a political canvass with an opponent, who promised what he would do for his constituents, if elected. Randolph told him he was like one of his overseers, a plausible fellow, but on whom little reliance was to be placed—and who, desiring to show what fine crops he had raised, exhibited a better tally board than the crop could justify. "I told him," said Randolph, "this is very good tally, John, but where's the corn? and I tell the gentleman, I don't want to see his tally, but the corn—the evidence of what he ever did to entitle him to a seat in Congress." The effect was electric, and the hustings rang with plaudits. Now we would say to C. H. McCormick, this is very good tally, John, but where's the Corn? The evidence that the machine ever cut a single acre of grain.

[Sidenote: "John Smith"]

In a long communication to Commissioner Burke in 1848, together with a list of sales and profits, C. H. McCormick states, and on oath, that he had exhibited his machine in 1840 or 1841 to a considerable number of farmers and very satisfactorily, though but one person could be induced to purchase—a Mr. John Smith we believe—and that up to 1842, eleven years after the alleged invention, he had sold but two machines, and one of them conditionally. Again, in the same paper he states, "but they failed to operate well," and had to be altered—in other words they would not work at all. Amongst others, he had applied to "the farmer of Virginia, Mr. Sampson," for a certificate as to the satisfactory working of the machine, but it was declined.

We are not surprised at this; for some 35 years ago we were personally acquainted with this "farmer of Virginia," and also with his mode of farming; and know that a machine of any kind to please him must work and must also work "well." Richard Sampson was at that early day in this "age of progress," one of the best and most practical farmers in the "Old Dominion," and was not a man to be "caught napping," either at home or abroad.

The record shows that "on March 29, 1848, the Board met agreeably to adjournment—Present, James Buchanan, Secretary of State, Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents, and R. H. Gillett, Solicitor of the Treasury—and having examined the evidence adduced in the case decide that said patent ought not to be extended."

(Signed) "JAMES BUCHANAN, "Secretary of State.

"EDMUND BURKE, "Commissioner of Patents.

"R. H. GILLETT, "Solicitor of the Treasury."

This evidence, taken in due form, and certified to by the magistrates in Augusta and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia, was not ruled out as informal, as we have seen it stated: but it was certainly laid before the Board; and was doubtless satisfactory both as to priority of invention, and in connection with Dr. Page's report, conclusive, "that said patent ought not to be extended."

We have also seen it stated that Hussey appeared before the Board of Extensions "to contest the extension of McCormick's patent."

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Acted in Self Defense]

We think injustice—and no doubt unintentionally—is here done to Hussey. Until the order of the Board was passed to afford him the opportunity to defend his rights, assailed without his knowledge, he was not aware of C. H. McCormick's application. As a matter of course he then attended, but stated in writing, and which is now on file, "I had no intention, neither had I any desire to place any obstacle in the way of the extension of C. H. McCormick's patent. But the course he has taken before your Board and before Congress has compelled me to act in self defense."

[Sidenote: McCormick Assailed the Hussey Extension]

Not so with C. H. McCormick; for when his claims were rejected by the Board of Extensions,—and most justly, as we think, in accordance with the evidence—he petitioned Congress against Hussey's extension: and to this most ungenerous, illiberal and unfair course, and of which Hussey was for years totally ignorant, C. H. McCormick may justly attribute this enquiry;—but for this, it had never been written. Our object is not to injure C. H. McCormick; but it is that justice may be done to another, whose interests and rights he was the first to assail.

If the foregoing testimony is not conclusive, as regards priority of invention in 1831 against C. H. McCormick, we think the evidence which follows—and which no one will pretend to call in question, or doubt—establishes the fact that the machine of 1831 was good for nothing,—not even half invented; and that the machine of 1841 was not much more perfect.

On page 231 of the Reports of Juries for the Great London Exhibition, and now in the Library of Congress, we find the following:

"It seems right," says Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., "to put on record Mr. McCormick's own account of his progress, or some extracts at least, from a statement written by him, at my request."—[Pusey.]

"My father was a farmer in the county of Rockbridge, State of Virginia, United States. He made an experiment in cutting grain in the year 1816, by a number of cylinders standing perpendicularly. Another experiment of the same kind was made by my father in the harvest of 1831, which satisfied my father to abandon it. Thereupon my attention was directed to the subject, and the same harvest I invented and put in operation in cutting late oats on the farm of John Steele, adjoining my father's, those parts of my present Reaper called the platform, for receiving the corn, a straight blade taking effect on the corn, supported by stationary fingers over the edge, and a reel to gather the corn; which last, however, I found had been used before, though not in the same combination.

"Although these parts constituted the foundation of the present machine, I found in practice innumerable difficulties, being limited also to a few weeks each year, during the harvest, for experimenting, so that my first patent for the Reaper was granted in June, 1834.

"During this interval, I was often advised by my father and family to abandon it, and pursue my regular business, as likely to be more profitable, he having given me a farm. [Italicised by C. H. McC.]

"No machines were sold until 1840, and I may say that they were not of much practical value until the improvements of my second patent in 1845.

"These improvements consist in reversing the angle of the sickle teeth alternately—the improved form of the fingers to hold up the corn, etc.—an iron case to preserve the sickles from clogging—and a better mode of separating the standing corn to be cut. Up to this period nothing but loss of time and money resulted from my efforts. The sale has since steadily increased, and is now more than a thousand yearly."[2]

[2] "The sale has since steadily increased, and is now more than a thousand yearly." This was written in 1851, and by a little calculation, we can readily estimate the "yearly" profits. In the Circuit Court of the United States, at Albany, in the suit brought by C. H. McCormick against Seymour & Morgan, in 1850, for an alleged infringement of patent, it was proved on the oath of O. H. Dormon, his partner, and also on the oath of H. A. Blakesley, their clerk, that these Reapers only cost $36 to $37 to manufacture. By the same evidence, the sales averaged from $110 to $120 each machine; leaving a clear profit of at least $73. C. H. McCormick first received a patent fee of $30 on each machine, then three-fourths of the remainder in the division of profits. It would thus appear, if these figures are correct—and they are all sworn to—that C. H. McCormick realized full fifty thousand dollars clear profit annually, with a margin of eight to ten thousand dollars for commissions and bad debts in addition.

It would be just as conclusive and reasonable for the father of C. H. McCormick to claim at this day priority of invention for his Reaper invented in 1816, "by a number of cylinders standing perpendicularly;" or for "the invention made by my father in the harvest of 1831, which satisfied my father to abandon it." This authority, high and official as all must admit it to be, [and italicised too, by the writer for a particular object,] clearly proves that the invention of 1831 was an abortion; for if the principle was effective to cut one acre of grain properly, any man of common sense knows that it was equally so to cut one thousand acres; but so complete was the failure that, "During this interval"—between 1831 and 1834—"I was often advised by my father and family to abandon it, and pursue my regular business, as likely to be more profitable, he having given me a farm."

Again, "No machines were sold until 1840, and I may say that they were not of much practical value until the improvements of my second patent in 1845." What these improvements were we are also informed: "These improvements consist in reversing the angle of the sickle teeth alternately, the improved form of the fingers to hold up the corn, etc.—an iron case to preserve the sickle from clogging, etc.—up to this period nothing but loss of time and money resulted from my efforts."

Nor is it at all surprising; for until improvements were added, invented and long in successful operation by others, the machine would not work, and consequently no one would buy.

[Sidenote: McCormick's Pen More Effective Than His Reaper]

This letter is the most perfect and complete estopper to priority of invention—not only for 1831, but to 1841 inclusive, if not to 1845, that could be penned. His pen cuts a "cleaner swath," as we farmers say, than ever did his Reaper; and this letter at least is certainly C. H. McCormick's own "invention," which no one else can lay any claim to. Yet, strange as it may appear, he contended before the Board of Extensions in order to invalidate Hussey's Patent, that he invented a Reaping Machine nine years before! So has perpetual motion been invented a hundred times—in the estimation of the projectors; and by his own showing, and on oath, he sold but two machines up to 1842—one of them conditionally sold—being eleven years after the alleged invention, and even they had to be re-invented to make them work, or use the previous inventions of others.

In this letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., C. H. McCormick admits that the Reel "had been used before," yet he includes it in his patent of 1834.—Both the specifications and drawings in the Patent Office conclusively establish the fact that James Ten Eyck patented the reel or "revolving rack," or "revolving frame" in 1825, used not only to gather the grain as all such devices are used, but by the knives attached to it, also intended to cut it off.

[Sidenote: Priority of the Reel]

Could it be contended that because rockers are attached to a chair it is no longer a chair, or useful as a seat? Even "Mary McCormick, the mother of Cyrus," and "Eliza H. Steele, of Steele's Tavern, Virginia"—nay every woman and child in the country would tell you that it was then a rocking chair—just as much a seat as ever—and Ten Eyck's was a Reel to all intents and purposes, but also a cutting reel. It does not require the mechanical tact and skill of Professor Page to discover that "the revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its operation is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, patented November 2d, 1825." It is certain the reel was no "novelty," either in 1831 or 1834, when patented by C. H. McCormick; he tells us so himself; and it is most likely the father of C. H. McCormick also used a reel for his "cylinders standing perpendicularly, in 1816," and also for his other plan in 1831, and "which satisfied my father to abandon it." And it is equally probable that most of the "fathers" and the sons, who invented Reapers for a hundred years preceding the date of Hussey's patent, used reels;—indeed the reel seemed to be considered a Sine qua non by many; most of the inventors we have any clear account of, resorted to the reel.

Hussey also used the reel in 1833—of course the reel and seat in combination—but only for a short period, as it was found quite unnecessary—an actual incumbrance with his cutting apparatus, and soon laid it aside.

We will now examine another invention patented by C. H. McCormick, in 1847. We here assert and challenge a denial, that from 12 to 14 years after the alleged invention of a Reaper by C. H. McCormick in 1831, and from 9 to 12 years after the date of his patent in 1834 his raker walked by the side of his machine, while Hussey's raker rode on the machine as they always had done since his first machine that cut the grain like "a thing of life" in Hamilton County, Ohio, in 1833. Yet, in 1847, C. H. McCormick takes out a patent for the raker's seat! this was a "novelty" and well worth a patent!

[Sidenote: The Raker's Seat]

In two trials of reaping machines by Hussey and McCormick in the same fields in Virginia, in 1843, one at Hutchinson's, and the other on the plantation of the late Senator Roane, at Tree Hill, near Richmond, McCormick's raker walked by the side of the machine, while Hussey's rode on the machine, in the same manner as he did just exactly ten years before.

We have three letters from the late Hon. William H. Roane referring to these trials, and ordering a machine from Hussey, after witnessing the operation of both. Two of the letters he desired might not be published; but says in one of them, "I have no objection to your stating publicly that a member of the committee who made the report last summer at Hutchinson's, which was published a few days thereafter, witnessed a fuller and fairer trial between the two machines, and has in consequence ordered one of yours. * * * What I have said above of —— is intended only for your eye confidentially, to show you in part the character and probable motives of the opposition your Reaper has met. Let what I say be private, as I have a great objection to going into the newspapers. Should you ever want it, you can have from me the strongest public testimonial of my good opinion of your machine."

The third letter, giving this "testimonial," was published in the American Farmer in January, 1844. As the Raker's Seat—the main feature of C. H. McCormick's patent of 1847—comes fairly within the scope of this enquiry as to priority of invention, we re-publish Senator Roane's letter and also furnish other testimony on the subject.

"To the Editor of the American Farmer:

"As the question of which is the best Reaping Machine is of no little importance to wheat growers, it is highly necessary that they be rightly informed of every fact which tends to decide the question. The trial which forms the subject of the following correspondence was looked forward to with great interest by farmers; such was the partial character of the trial, and the general terms of the committee's report, in which the particulars that led to the result were omitted, it cannot appear strange that the public should be in some degree misled with regard to the relative merits of the two machines. If my own interest was alone concerned, I would not thus far trespass on your columns, but you will doubtless agree with me, that it is due to wheat growers throughout the country that the views expressed by Mr. Roane, in connection with the committee's report, should be published as extensively as the report itself; I therefore solicit the insertion of the following correspondence in your paper.

"Very respectfully,

"OBED HUSSEY."

[Sidenote: Hussey Letter to Mr. Roane]

"Baltimore, January 18th, 1844.

"To the Hon. William H. Roane:

"Dear Sir—You will remember that a trial took place on the farm of Mr. Hutchinson near Richmond, Va., in July last, between my reaping machine and Mr. McCormick's, at which trial you were one of a committee which gave the preference to Mr. McCormick's machine.

"You will also recollect that the machine which I used at that time was a small one, and quite different from that which I used in your field a few days afterwards in a second trial between Mr. McCormick and myself.

"As the first trial was made under circumstances unfavorable to myself, owing to the difficulties which prevented me from getting my best machine to the field on that day, and other impediments incidental to a stranger unprovided with a team, etc., and as no report was made of the second trial, you will oblige me by informing me what your impressions were after witnessing the second trial.

"I would very gladly embrace the opportunity which the next harvest will afford of following up my experiments in wheat cutting in Virginia, but the new field opened to me in the great west for cutting hemp, in which I was so successful last September, as will appear by the Louisville 'Journal' of that date, will claim my particular attention this year. I mention this to you lest it might appear that I had abandoned the field in Virginia by my non-appearance there in the next harvest.

"Very respectfully yours, etc.,

"OBED HUSSEY."

[Sidenote: Mr. Roane's Reply]

"Tree Hill, January 23d, 1844.

"Dear Sir:

"I received a few days ago your letter of the 17th inst., on the subject of your reaping machine; you call my recollection to a trial between it and Mr. McCormick's reaper at Mr. Hutchinson's in July last, on which occasion I 'was one of a committee which gave the preference to Mr. McCormick's machine;' you also advert to a trial between these rival machines a few days subsequent, at this place, and request to know my impressions after this second trial. I presume from the fact of my having ordered one of your reapers for the ensuing harvest, that it is your purpose to publish this statement. Averse as I am to having my name in print on this, or any other occasion, I cannot with propriety decline a response to your inquiry. I had never seen or formed an idea of a reaping machine until I went to Hutchinson's—I was surprised and delighted with the performance of each of them, and fully resolved to own one of them by the next harvest, but their performance that day left me in a state of doubt which I should select. The report spoke in terms of high praise of each machine, and I consented to its award that on the whole Mr. McCormick's was preferable, merely because being the cheapest and requiring but two horses, it would best suit the majority of our farmers, who make small crops of wheat on weak land—for I doubted its capacity in heavy grain. After this report was made I heard your complaint that you did not have a fair trial, because being unable to bring into the field your large improved Reaper, which was up the river, you were compelled to comply with your engagement for the day, with a small and inferior machine, drawn by an indifferent and untutored team. Mr. Hutchinson's wheat was badly rusted, and therefore light. I had ready for the scythe a low ground field of heavy and well matured grain; partly to expedite my harvest work, and partly to renew the trial, that I might solve my doubts as to the merits of these machines, I succeeded in engaging them to be at Tree Hill on a named day. They both came agreeable to appointment, Mr. McCormick bringing the machine he used at Hutchinson's, and you bringing the one you could not on that occasion bring down the river. The day was fine, and both machines did their best, and had a very fair trial. My doubts were fully removed, and my mind convinced that for the heavy wheat we raise on our river low grounds, rich bottoms, etc., your machine is superior to Mr. McCormick's, of which I still think highly. I accordingly ordered one of yours to be made for the approaching harvest.

"I wish you all possible success in cutting hemp in the 'Great West.' It must be very desirable to cut that valuable plant instead of pulling it up by the roots, and I cannot doubt that your reaper has ample power for the process.

"Most respectfully, yours, etc.,

"W. H. ROANE.

"Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore."

"We are not advised at what precise period subsequent to 1843 and previous to 1847 (when C. H. McCormick patented the raker's seat), that he changed the arrangement of his wheels, etc., so as to admit a seat for his raker without 'tipping up the machine' as was unavoidable previously. From evidence deemed fully reliable, he was not the first even on his own machine, to provide a seat for the raker, "and all take a ride.' It is laborious enough to test fully the endurance of the most powerful and muscular man, to ride and rake; but to walk and rake is even more barbarous than the old time ball and chain to the leg of the felon. The considerate and feeling farmer would certainly 'wait for the wagon' to be better fixed before thus undertaking to reap his grain fields if himself or his hands had to ride in this sort of style.

"We have a letter from Isaac Irvine Hite, Esq., now of Clarke County, Va., which throws some light on the subject; he says (italicised by the writer):

"In 1842 my father, by my request, purchased for me of C. H. McCormick and Father, a reaper at $110, which was drawn by two horses, and it was raked off to the right hand side by a man on foot. The father of C. H. McCormick stated to me at the commencement of that harvest, that it had been nine years since they had first operated with it, in pretty much the form it was then constructed. On a recent visit to Messrs. McCormick, who then resided on the line between Augusta and Rockbridge Counties in this State, the old gentleman stated to me that he had been at odd times at work on the reaper for many years; and either he or his son stated to me that C. H. McCormick had been improving, changing or inventing various parts until they had (as they thought) perfected the machine. * * * I disliked the labor imposed on the hand who had to walk and remove the wheat from a platform seven feet in width, and urged Messrs. McCormick to attach another contrivance so as to enable the raker to ride and perform his arduous task; the old gentleman contended that that could never be accomplished, but that a self-operating appendage could be constructed to remove the grain, but that would be uncertain, and entirely unreliable. During my visit, he pointed out to me one or more fixtures they had tried for the raker to ride on. I think one was on one wheel, and the other on two.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hite Suggests a Seat]

I yet contended that it could be accomplished; if by no other means, by changing the construction of the machine, and remarked to him, if I were a mechanic, and understood the construction of the machine well enough to venture to alter its parts, I was certain I could so arrange it, and requested him to urge his son to make the effort; he replied that it would be useless; that they had tried every imaginable way or plan before placing the machine before the public, and that they regarded it as an impossibility, successfully, and properly, in any other way than on foot, and said it was necessary for the heads to be brought round to the right, in which I fully agreed; but contended it could be done while the raker was riding or standing in an erect position.

[Sidenote: McCormick Condemns]

After this unsatisfactory interview I returned home, and at the close of the next wheat harvest I had a small carriage, about 3 feet by 3-1/2 feet, constructed on two wheels, and connected underneath the platform, by means of shafts to the back part of the head of the machine; this during the cutting of my oat crop answered every purpose, so far as the raker was concerned, but there was a difficulty in turning. C. H. McCormick came to see this combination sometime during the year, and condemned it in toto. But by the next harvest I had it so constructed, as to be drawn by an iron bar so shaped, appended and supported on the underneath part of the carriage, as to admit of the machine turning in any direction, and the carriage would follow just as the two hind wheels of a wagon do; the carriage had a seat behind, and a thick, deep cushion in front, for the raker to press his knees against while removing the grain from the platform to his right hand, which he was enabled to do with apparent ease with a rake of peculiar shape;—(it cannot be done with a rake of ordinary shape).

[Sidenote: McCormick Adopts Mr. Hite's Suggestion]

The working of the first carriage was witnessed by many gentlemen who approved of it; and the combination of the second carriage I applied for a patent for. The model carriage can now be seen in the room of the Patent Office, containing models of all rejected patents. After this, I heard of McCormick making experiments at one of his Western factories—I think it was at Chicago; and finally he addressed me a letter, stating he had changed the construction of his machine, and had it so constructed that the raker could ride on the machine and remove the grain."

We think the foregoing letter—for it carries truth on its face—clearly shows that the idea of "changing the construction of the machine," and permit the raker to ride, did not originate with the McCormick's father or son; for "they had tried every imaginable plan or way before placing the machine before the public, and that they regarded it as an impossibility for the wheat to be so removed regularly, successfully and properly, in any other way except on foot."

At the trial referred to at Hutchinson's, and the late Senator Roane's in 1843, it was demonstrated that a raker could ride and rake, and as was also done by Hussey many years before, at various places, and delivering the grain at back or side. But we have still better evidence than the above—C. H. McCormick himself.

His Patent of 1847, covering some four or five folio pages, is altogether to change "the construction of the machine," to admit of, and to patent the raker's seat; the substance of the whole is comprised within the following brief extract from the patent of 1847:

[Sidenote: McCormick's Patent for Raker's Seat]

"And the gearing which communicates motion to the crank is placed back of the driving wheel, which is therefore subject to be clogged by sand, dirt, straw, etc.—and in consequence of the relative position of the various parts, the attendant is obliged to walk on the ground by the side of the machine, to rake the cut grain from the platform as it is delivered and laid there by the reel. These defects which have so much retarded the introduction into practical and general use of Reaping Machines, I have remedied by my improvements, the nature of which consists in placing the driving wheels further back than heretofore, and back of the gearing which communicates motion to the sickle, which is placed in a line back of the axis of the driving wheel, the connexion being formed, etc., and also bringing the driving wheel sufficiently far back to balance the frame of the machine with the raker on it, to make room for him to sit or stand on the frame," etc., etc.—"which cannot be done, if the raker walks by the side of the machine, as heretofore."

[Sidenote: Hussey Fourteen Years Ahead]

Now if C. H. McCormick's testimony in his own favor, can be considered reliable, he certainly had not invented a seat for his raker as late as 1845—and not long prior to 1847, when he patented it; and just fourteen years after Hussey had used it every year, successively. The raker's seat therefore was just as original an invention as the reel.

The "straight sickle blade," but cut one way only, and abandoned some 10 or 12 years after its conception in 1831, as he states, appears to be the only original idea—properly belonging to whom it may—in the patent of 1834. As to the "foundation" of the machine, viz:—the platform, cog wheels, crank, etc., etc., they have been used by every projector in reaping machines, for a century.

A machine exhibited at the World's Fair in London, by C. H. McCormick, had the "straight sickle blade," but alternating the cuts every few inches. With such a machine it is impracticable to cut grain, much less grass, efficiently, divested of the reel. That plan has since been changed to a much more efficient blade, the scolloped edged sickle. That it was used in the Northwestern States by others several years previous to its adoption by C. H. McCormick, we believe admits of just as little doubt, as rests with the priority of invention of the Reel, Rakers-seat, etc.

There is one other important feature, patented in 1845 and referred to in the Pusey letter;—an "Iron case to preserve the sickles from clogging;" these we will also take a look into after a while.

Obed Hussey, as appears by the evidence before us, made his first machine in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he then resided, in the spring of 1833, and it was patented the same year.

[Sidenote: The Hussey Principle]

His principle—the arrangement and construction of the Guards and Knives—was precisely identical with those used by him at the present day, except an improvement patented in 1847, leaving openings at the back end of the slot in the guards for the escape of particles of straw or grass that might get in between the blades and guards.

It was communicated at the time by letter with a diagram to a personal friend now living, and of the highest respectability, from whom we have a certificate, and copy of the drawing. The knives or cutters, for lack of more suitable materials were made out of hand saw blades cut into suitable form, and riveted to a bar, vibrating through an opening or slot in the guards.

[Sidenote: An Early Experiment]

Judge Foster, residing within a few miles of the city, and to whom he applied, kindly offered him every facility to test the machine by cutting grain, ripe and unripe, being himself greatly interested in its success. When taken to the field, a considerable number of persons were attracted to the spot; and rather to the discomfiture of the inventor, for it may well be supposed it was an anxious moment to him, and he desired no witnesses to his failure. The machine was started; but owing to some part giving away, or some slight defect not apparent until then, it failed to work satisfactorily. One burley fellow present picked up a cradle, and, swinging it with an air of great exultation, exclaimed, "this is the machine to cut the wheat!"

After the jeers and merriment of the crowd had somewhat subsided, the inventor remedied the defect, and assisted by the laborers present—the horses having been removed—pulled the machine to the top of an adjacent hill; when alone, he drew the machine down the hill, and through the standing grain, when it cut every head clean in its track!

The same machine was directly afterwards exhibited before the Hamilton County Agricultural Society near Carthage, on the 2nd of July, 1833. Of its operation and success, the following statements, and certificates, now in our possession, sufficiently testify. Doctor Wallace as well as some others of the gentlemen, are living witnesses of what is here stated.

[Sidenote: Wallace Testimonial]

Cincinnati, November 20th, 1833.

This may certify that I was present on the 2nd day of July near Carthage, in this county, at an experimental trial with a machine invented by Mr. Obed Hussey for cutting grain. The operation was performed on a field of wheat. The machine was found to cut the wheat clean, and with great rapidity. But owing to its having been imperfectly made, being only constructed for the experiment, some parts of wood which should have been made of iron, and in consequence frequently getting some parts out of order, a correct estimate of the quantity of work it would perform in a given time could not be made. One point was, however, satisfactorily established, that the principle upon which the machine is constructed will operate; and when well built will be an important improvement, and greatly facilitate the harvesting of grain. I would also remark that the horses moving the machine were walked, and trotted, and it was found to cut best with the greatest velocity.

C. D. WALLACE, Secretary of the Hamilton County Agricultural Society.

[Sidenote: Exceeded Expectations]

We, the undersigned, witnessed the exhibition of Mr. O. Hussey's Machine for cutting grain alluded to by Dr. Wallace, and do fully concur with his statement of its performance. We would further add, that notwithstanding its temporary construction, its performance far exceeded our expectations. Cutting the grain clean and rapidly, and leaving it in good order for binding. We are of the opinion that the machine is capable of being propelled at the rate of five miles the hour, and do good work. The machine was worked when the cutters were both in a sharp and a dull condition, and no difference could be perceived in its execution.

(Signed) "G. A. MAYHEW, T. R. SEBRING, A. CASTNER, JACOB WHITE, H. B. COFFIN, C. F. COFFIN, S. W. FOLGER, T. B. COFFIN, WM. PADDOCK."

There are several other certificates equally conclusive and satisfactory; but we will only copy in addition to the foregoing, a short piece from the Farmer and Mechanic, issued July 3d, 1833, in Cincinnati, as follows:

"Several members of the Agricultural Society on last Wednesday attended in Carthage to see a machine for cutting wheat by horse power, in operation. It was propelled by two horses, and cut as fast as eight persons could conveniently bind, doing the cutting neatly.

"This machine is the invention of Mr. O. Hussey, and will no doubt prove a useful addition to our agricultural implements. Mr. J. C. Ludlow suggested that it would be good economy of time and labor to take a threshing machine into the field and thresh out the grain as it is reaped, thereby saving the binding and hauling to the barn or stack. We think the suggestion a good one."

[Sidenote: The Problem Solved]

Here, then, was the problem solved—the great discovery made that had puzzled the brains of hundreds if not of thousands, and for centuries. No one we fearlessly assert had ever succeeded so completely and satisfactorily, and with so simple and practical a machine.

Some visited the exhibition determined to condemn as they afterwards acknowledged, deeming the thing impracticable; but all were convinced; for the demonstration was of that character which left no room for doubt or cavil in the minds of any.

[Sidenote: A Great Triumph]

It was indeed a triumph,—not perhaps entirely unexpected to the inventor—but neither he, nor any one else at that early day, could foresee the wonderful changes ultimately to be effected, and the world-wide renown to be conferred on the inventor as the result of this experiment; one that was certain to immortalize his name as a pioneer and benefactor in the most useful and peaceful pursuits in life. It was too, the dawn of a brighter day to the toiling husbandman, by lightening his labors, and adding to his comfort and independence; only circumscribed in its beneficial influence by the bounds of civilization.

Some may possibly suppose that we view the invention in too glowing colors; but we have yet to meet with the farmer who owned a good reaping and mowing machine that would dispense with its advantages for twice the cost of the implement, and again be compelled to resort to the sickle, the cradle, and the scythe; for of a truth it completely supersedes all three in competent hands and with fair usage, in both the grain and grass crops.

[Sidenote: No Competitors Until 1841]

It is difficult to confine our narrative to its intended brief limits and select from the mass of evidence on hand as to the uninterrupted success off Hussey's invaluable invention from that day to the present—now twenty-one years. We will therefore only select a single and short account of each year; until about 1840 or '42; not long after which a few other inventors came before the public. There was, however, no competitor in the field from 1833 to 1841 or 1842, either in Europe or America, so far as we can ascertain, that did more than make a few occasional trials; none attracted public attention, or were successful and efficient machines even in the estimation of the projectors themselves. The evidence proves it, and it is corroborated by our own personal knowledge, having been constantly engaged in Agricultural and Mechanical pursuits for more than thirty years—and, as we believe, familiar with most of the important improvements of the age;—of all in fact, directly connected with agriculture in its labor saving implements, of any notoriety.

[Sidenote: No Reaping Machine Without Hussey Principle]

Many alleged improvements have been made in the Reaper in the past ten or twelve years; and many more still within half that period. How far they are new inventions, and actual improvements, we can better judge by examining Hussey's patent; for it describes the cutting apparatus clearly and minutely, and which in fact is the whole thing,—the "one thing needful" to success. For the use of wheels, or a system of gearing to all kinds of motive machinery is coeval with the first dawn of mechanical science. How ancient we know not, for the Prophets of old spoke of "wheels within wheels" near three thousand years ago; and it is very certain the hand of man, unaided by wheels and machinery, never erected the vast Pyramids and other structures of antiquity. We do not believe there is a single Reaping and Mowing machine in successful operation on this continent that is not mainly indebted to Hussey's invention in the cutting apparatus, for its success: deprive them of this essential feature—disrobe them of their borrowed plumes, and their success would be like the flight of the eagle, suddenly bereft of his pinions,—he must fall; and the machines would stand still, for not a farmer in the land would use them.

[Sidenote: The Guards]

As previously remarked, O. Hussey's first patent is dated in 1833. We omit the more general description of the machine, and copy only what embraces the most important features, the guards and knives; also an extract from his improvement patented in 1847, to obviate choking in the guards:

"On the front edge of the platform is fixed the cutting or reaping apparatus, which is constructed in the following manner: A series of iron spikes, and which I will call guards, are fixed permanently to the platform, and extend seven or eight inches, more or less, beyond the edge of the platform, parallel to each other, horizontal, and pointing forward. These guards are about three inches apart, of a suitable size, say three-quarters of an inch square, more or less, at the base, and lessening towards the points. The guards are formed of a top and bottom piece, joined at the point and near the back, being nearly parallel, and about one-eighth of an inch apart, forming a horizontal mortice or slit through the guard; these mortices being on a line with each other, form a continued range of openings or slits through the guards. The first guard is placed on the rear of the right wheel, and the last at the extreme end of the platform, and the intermediate guards at equal distances from each other, and three inches apart, more or less, from center to center.



[Sidenote: The Cutter]

"The cutter or saw (f) is formed of thin triangular plates of steel fastened to a straight flat rod, (g) of steel, iron or wood, one inch and a half wide; these steel plates are arranged side by side, forming a kind of saw with teeth three inches at the base, and four and a half inches long, more or less, sharp on both sides, and terminating nearly in a point. The saw is then passed through all the guards in the aforesaid range of mortices, the size of the mortice being suited to receive the saw with the teeth pointing forward; observing always that the points of the saw teeth should correspond with the center of the guards. One end of the saw is connected with a pitman moved by a crank, and receiving its motion from the main axis, by one or two sets of cog wheels. The vibration of this crank must be equal to the distances of the centers of the guards, or the points of the saw teeth, or thereabouts, so when the machine is in motion, the point of each saw tooth may pass from center to center of the guards on each side of the same tooth at every vibration of the crank; if the main wheels are three feet four inches in diameter, they should in one revolution give the crank sixteen vibrations, more or less; the saw teeth should play clear of the guards, both above and below. * * *

[Sidenote: Operation]

"The power is given by locking the wheels to the main axis, the machine has one square wheel box, the other round and locked at pleasure. If the power should be wanted, one, two, or more horses are attached and driven on the stubble before the machine, the right wheel running near the standing grain, the platform with the saw in its front edge extends on the right, at right angles with the direction of the horses, with the guards and saw teeth presented to the standing grain—when the machine moves forward, the saw moves with the teeth endwise and horizontal, the grain or grass is brought between the guards, the saw teeth in passing through the guards, cut the stalk while held both above and below the saw—the butts of the grain receive an impulse forward by the motion of the machine while in the act of being cut, which causes the heads of the grain to fall directly backwards on the platform—in this manner the platform receives the grain until a sufficient quantity is collected to make one or more bundles, according to the pleasure of the operator, then it is deposited with a proper instrument by the operator, who may ride on the machine."

Here follows the dimensions of a machine suited to two horses, which is only copied so far as refers to the cutting apparatus, viz: "The back of the saw may be from one inch to one and one-half inches wide, and from three-sixteenths to one-quarter of an inch thick; and the steel plates for the teeth should be about one-tenth of an inch thick; one end of the mortice in the guard should be fitted to receive the back of the saw, so that the bearing may be on the back of the saw only."



[Sidenote: The Four Essentials]

"In this machine the following points are claimed as new and original: 1st. The straight horizontal saw, with the teeth sharp on their two sides for cutting grain. 2d. The guards forming double bearers above and below the saw, whereby the cutting is made sure, whether with a sharp or dull edge, the guards at the same time protecting the saw from rocks or stones, or other large substances it may meet with. 3d. The peculiar construction that the saw teeth may run free, whereby the necessary pressure and consequent friction of two corresponding edges cutting together, as on the principle of scissors, is entirely avoided. 4th. The peculiar arrangement by which the horses are made to go before the machine, being more natural, and greatly facilitating the use of the machine, and the general arrangement of the points as above described.

"In cutting grass, the platform is reduced in width, and the grass falls on the ground as it is cut."

In the improvement of the guards patented in 1847, the claim states: "I accordingly claim the opening above the blades A, fig. 3, and at D, fig. 1, in combination with vibrating blades. I also claim the particular application of the flush edge at the fork of the blades, for the purpose described.

"The end and design of the improvements above claimed is to prevent the blades choking."

[Sidenote: McCormick Twelve Years Late]

En passant, we would ask any intelligent and candid farmer or mechanic who has examined a successful reaper, to compare the foregoing plain specifications which all can understand, with the cutting apparatus of the most successful modern machine. And we would especially desire him to compare them in principle with the "improved form of fingers to hold up the corn, and an iron case to preserve the sickles from clogging;" not the alleged invention of 1831, by C. H. McCormick, and abandoned from 1840 to 1843, but the claims patented by him in 1845 [as stated in the letter to Philip Pusey, M. P.], twelve years after the date of Hussey's patent, and twelve years after his most complete and uninterrupted success in cutting both grain and grass. In fact, there was no year from and including 1833 up to 1854, a period of 21 years the past harvest, that we have not the most positive and conclusive evidence of the success of Hussey's reaper; in numerous cases the same machines had cut from 500 to 800, and even one thousand acres; in one instance, the same machine was used for fourteen harvests, or as many years, successively and successfully.

[Sidenote: Canfield Testimonial]

We have given some of the evidence for 1833. For 1834 we annex two letters giving an account of the two machines made this year, one in Illinois, and the other in New York, viz:

"Spring Creek, Sangamon Co., Ill., "October 1st, 1854.

"Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore:

"Dear Sir:—Your favor of August 10th came to hand a few days since. The reason was, it lay at Berlin (formerly Island Grove Post-office) and my Post-office address is Springfield, the only place where I call for letters.

"In answer to your query, how your Reaping Machine worked in 1834, I have to say that it cut about sixteen acres of wheat for me on my farm; that it did the work in first rate style; according to my best recollection, as well as any of the machines that have since been introduced. The only objection I recollect being made, was, that when the straw was wet, or there was much green grass among the wheat, the blades would choke. You certainly demonstrated in 1834 the practicability of cutting grain or grass with horse-power; and all the machines since introduced seem to have copied your machine in all its essential features.

"I am respectfully yours,

"JOHN E. CANFIELD."

The next letter we copy from the Genesee Farmer of December 6th, 1834. The reader will readily perceive that the author, William C. Dwight, knew how to handle the pen as well as the plow, and equally well to work the reaper, being a practical farmer. But we are pained to add that he lost his life by the fatal railroad accident at Norwalk, Ct., about a year since.

From the Genesee Farmer, December 6, 1834.

"To the Editor of the Genesee Farmer:

"I wrote you last May that Mr. Hussey, the inventor of a machine for harvesting wheat, had left in this village one of his machines for the purpose of giving our farmers an opportunity to test its value, and I promised to write you further about it when it had been put to use. For many reasons which will not interest either yourself or the public, the matter has been delayed till the first rainy day, after my fall work was out of the way, should give leisure to remember and fulfill my promise.

"The machine has been fully tried, and I am gratified to be able to say that it has fully succeeded; hundreds of farmers from the different towns of this and the adjoining counties have witnessed its operations, and all have not only expressed their confidence in its success, but their gratification in the perfection of the work.

"As every inquirer asks the same series of questions, I presume your readers will have a like course of thought, and wish for satisfaction in the same particulars. To give them this, I will write them in their order, and give the answers:

"Does the machine make clean work?

"It saves all the grain. To use the language of a gratified looker-on, an old and experienced farmer, 'it cheats the hogs.'[3]

[3] The hogs are the gleaners in this section of country.

"Does the machine expedite the work?

"What the machine is capable of accomplishing, we who have used it can hardly say, as we had no field in fit order, large enough for a fair trial through a whole day; and can only say what it has done. Five acres of heavy wheat, on the Genesee flats, were harvested in two hours and a quarter.

"In what condition is the wheat left, and how is the work done where the wheat is lodged?

"The machine leaves the wheat in gavels large enough for a sheaf, and where grain stands well enough to make fair work with the cradle, it leaves the straw in as good condition to bind as the gavels of a good reaper. Whether the grain stands or is lodged is of little consequence, except as to the appearance of the sheaf, and the necessity of saving more straw, when lodged, than is desirable. The condition of the sheaf when the grain is lodged depends much upon the adroitness of the raker.

"What number of hands, and what strength of team is necessary to manage the machine advantageously?

"Two men, one to drive the team and the other to rake off the wheat, and two horses, work the machine; but when the grain is heavy, or the land mellow, a change of horses is necessary, as the gait of the horses is too rapid to admit of heavy draft. The horses go at the rate of four to five miles an hour, and when the growth of straw is not heavy a fair trot of the team is not too much.

"Is the machine liable to derangement and destruction from its own motion?

"This is a question which cannot be so directly answered as the others. We have only used the machine to cut about fifty acres, and have had no trouble; judging from appearances so far, should say it was as little subject to this evil as any machinery whatever. The wear upon the cutting part being so little as to require not more than fifteen minutes sharpening in a day; there is no loss of time on this score.

"Is the sheaf a good one to thresh?

"The man who has fed the threshing machine with the grain of twenty acres cut by this machine, says the sheaves are much better than those of cradled grain, and quite as good as those of a reaper.

"There is one more advantage beyond ordinary inquiries, of consequence, where so much grain is raised as in this valley; be the grain ever so ripe, there is no waste of grain by any agitation of the straw, and all the waste which can take place must arise from the handling and shaking in binding.

"I am yours, etc.,

"WM. C. DWIGHT.

"Moscow, Livingston Co., N. Y., Nov. 14, 1834.

"N. B.—The machine we used was intended only for upland, but by some little alterations and additions we used it with equal facility on all kinds of soil; and it can be used on any farm so clean from stumps and stones as not to endanger the blocking the wheels."

The following letter is evidence for 1835, and also refers to the originality of the invention by O. Hussey.

"Palmyra, Mo., Aug. 14, 1854.

"Friend Hussey—Yours duly received. As to the machines sent by you (ordered some two years since) they both worked well.

"Before you had invented your machine in 1831 or 1832, your attention was drawn to a mode of cutting grain, hemp and grass and you told me you thought you could invent such a machine to be drawn by horses; and after you had returned to Cincinnati from Laurenceburg you wrote me a letter in '32 or at the furthest in '33 (for I left Indiana 2nd Oct., 1833) with a draft and description of a plan for cutting grain. The draft was thus (here follows a diagram of the cutting apparatus exactly as described by the patent) and the description was, that these knives were to work by the motion of the wheels, being a perfect description of the invented principle.

"As soon as I saw the plan, I was satisfied of its success and wrote to you that there was no doubt of the success of your machine; that it was astonishing the world had so many thousand years been confined to the sickle when so obvious a mode of cutting grain and grass existed; and shortly after you obtained a patent for the machine.

"On the 6th July, 1835, you brought to Palmyra two of your machines, and they were put in operation near this place—one in a meadow between here and Philadelphia, and one in the heavy grass in Marion City bottom.[4] The machines did cut well. I was the editor of the Missouri Courier, from the month of November, 1833, until 1838, and brought your machine before the public; it excited much attention, and its performance was highly satisfactory. The results of the trials were published in the paper by me in August or September, 1835. I knew of the capacity of the machine, and that it did so execute in the bottom three acres an hour. In this I cannot be mistaken, for I felt at the time the deepest interest in the success of the machine. Mr. McElroy is dead, where you boarded, and also Samuel Muldrow and James Muldrow. Still I will inquire if any persons can be found who were present.

[4] Both of these machines were sold to Wm. Muldrow, Agent, of Marion College, Marion County, Mo.

"I know the results, and recollect distinctly the reception the machines met with, and the prices, to wit, $150 each. Muldrow bought another for $500—which was a whirling wheel. You recollect it; it never run any. Yours, I know it was said then, would cut off brush large enough for a hoop-hole. Court is now in session, but as soon as I can ascertain the witnesses (at the exhibition) I will write you further. But my recollection is distinct, from the relations existing between us, my interest in machinery generally, and my position as editor of the only paper of this section of country.

"As ever, your friend,

"EDWIN G. PRATT."

[Sidenote: Mode of Transportation]

In 1836 O. Hussey visited Maryland at the written solicitation of the Board of Trustees of The Maryland Agricultural Society, for the Eastern Shore. The fame of his reaping exploits in the State of New York, and the far West, had reached the East; though with something like a "snail's pace." We had not then the Magnetic Telegraph, which with lightning speed enables the East to talk with the West; nor even the "iron horse," by whose speed and power, the reaper that cut a large crop of wheat in Maryland, could within the same week cut another equally large in the valley of the Mississippi; but it then required some two to three years to prepare the public mind for the reception of the machine here; and owing to the limited means of the inventor, the transportation from place to place was often done by a single horse; accompanied by the inventor foot-sore and weary from walking hundreds of miles!

[Sidenote: An Inventor's Difficulties]

The annexed certificate was given, published, and widely circulated after a full trial of the machine, in cutting more than two hundred acres, and by large farmers and practical men, known throughout the State. Comment is unnecessary on such a paper; but we feel bound to state that it was mainly owing to the exertions of the liberal public spirited gentlemen, the last, though not the least of the signers, Gen. Tench Tilghman, that the Reaper was then introduced into this State. He was the early and steadfast friend of the Patentee, and to the cause of agricultural improvement in our State. Strange as it may appear to many at the present day, and notwithstanding these demonstrations in Ohio, Illinois, New York, Missouri and Maryland, which did not admit of cavil or doubt as to the entire efficiency and success of Hussey's reaper, scarcely a farmer could be found ready and willing to take hold of it, and aid the inventor in introducing it into use. But farmers as a class are proverbially cautious, and disinclined to change from established customs and usages; it often requires "line upon line and precept upon precept," aided, too, by almost a free gift of the article, to induce them even to give a new agricultural implement a fair trial,—a plough, for instance, that will do better work, with a fourth to a third less draught; the old and nearly worn out implement "does well enough." Gen. T. was, we believe, the first farmer in Maryland to use and purchase a reaping machine; and by so doing, to aid the inventive genius and talent of his countrymen, and also at the same time greatly to benefit the interest of his brother farmers. It avails little to the inventor, or the public, how valuable his improvement may be,—for in nine cases out of ten the inventor is limited in means,—if none can be found who are both able and willing to lend a helping hand to modest merit; for true genius is ever modest; and unfortunately the term is too often synonymous with penury and want.

[Sidenote: The Inventor's Rewards]

Very few of the really valuable inventions inure to the benefit of the inventors,—even to a tithe of the profits that are occasionally realized. His necessities often compel him to a forced sale of his patent right to some capitalist who has the tact to turn other men's wits to his own advantage; or the Public,—which simply means other capitalists of another description, who possess little or no inventive genius themselves, and just about as much principle as genius—seize upon the invention, and often in spite of law, justice, or right, reap the reward justly due to another.

This, however, is a digression for which we beg the reader's pardon; but we could not let the occasion pass without rendering this honest tribute to the public spirited farmer, who had the discernment to perceive its merits, and the liberality to aid its introduction, of one of the most valuable improvements of this, or any age.