GROWTH OF THE IDEA.
The idea of sewing by machinery had been cherished for a hundred years
before the first successful machine was built.
The earliest attempt at sewing by machinery of which any authentic
account exists was made as early as July 24th, 1755, when a machine was
patented in England by Charles F. Weisenthal, having a needle with two
points and an eye at mid-length.
The next sewing machine was that of Thomas Saint, of England, who
obtained a patent July 17, 1790. This man seems to have understood, with
remarkable clearness, the main essential features of the invention, for
his machine had a horizontal cloth-plate, an overhanging arm, at the end
of which was a needle working vertically, and a “feed” working
automatically between the stitches. These features have been preserved
in every successful machine ever made. The needle was notched at the
lower end, to push the thread through the goods, which had been
previously punctured by an awl. As the needle passed upwards, leaving a
loop in the thread, a loop-check caught the loop and held it until the
needle descended again, enchaining the thread of the new loop in the
former one.
In 1804 an Englishman, named Duncan, made a chain-stitch machine, having
a number of hooked needles, which passed through the cloth and were
supplied with thread beneath the goods by a feeding needle, whereupon
the needles receded, each drawing a loop through the loop previously
drawn by itself through the cloth.
In 1818 Rev. John A. Dodge, of Monkton, Vt., invented, and, with the
assistance of John Knowles, an ingenious mechanic, constructed a machine
having the double-pointed needle and eye at mid-length. It made a stitch
identical with the ordinary “back-stitch,” and was furnished with an
automatic device for “feeding” the work. Mr. Dodge never applied for a
patent, nor attempted to manufacture any more machines, because of the
great pressure upon his time as a pastor, and further on account of the
bitter opposition of journeymen tailors, who denounced the machine as an
invasion of their rights.
The first patent issued in America for a sewing machine was that of a
man named Lye, in the year 1826. Lye’s device could hardly have
contained any useful or striking features, for when the fire of 1836
destroyed all the Patent Office Records, it consumed all that remained
of this machine.
In the year 1830 Barthlemy Thimmonnier, a Parisian, invented a machine
which operated much as Saint’s did, except that the needle was
crocheted, and, descending through the goods, pulled up a lower thread
and formed a series of loops upon the upper side of the goods. Eighty of
these machines, made of wood, are said to have been used at one time in
Paris, making army clothing; but though patented in France in August,
1848, and in the United States September 3, 1850, it had too many
defects to become anything more than an important step in the onward
march of this great invention.
[Illustration:
BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF THE GREAT SINGER FACTORY.
]
Many other machines, of more or less merit, were constructed before Mr.
Singer made his machine, but all fell short of being practical and
useful. The nearest approach to success prior to 1850 was made by Walter
Hunt, of New York City, in the years 1832–3–4. His machine had a curved
needle, with an eye near the needle-point, which was operated on the end
of a vibrating arm. A loop was formed beneath the cloth by the
needle-thread, through which a shuttle, reeling off another thread, was
forced back and forth with each stitch, making an interlocked stitch
like that now made by the best machines. George A. Arrowsmith, a
blacksmith, of Woodbridge, N. J., being of a speculative turn, bought
one-half of Walter Hunt’s invention in 1834, and afterwards acquired the
remainder. Soon afterwards, Adoniram F. Hunt, a brother of Walter, was
employed by Arrowsmith to construct some sewing machines upon the same
principle, but differing somewhat in arrangement of details from the
original. These machines were made and operated at a machine shop in
Amos Street, New York City. Arrowsmith neglected to obtain a patent upon
the machine for reasons which, in the light of events now past, make
singularly interesting reading. He assigned three reasons for not
procuring a patent: (1) He had other business; (2) the expense of
patenting; (3) the supposed difficulty of introducing them into use,
saying, it “would have cost two or three thousand dollars to start the
business.” There appeared also a prejudice against any machine which had
a tendency to dispense with female labor. A proposition made by Walter
Hunt to his daughter to engage in the corset-making business with a
sewing machine was declined, after consultation with her female friends,
principally, if not altogether, as she afterwards testified, “on the
ground that the introduction of such a machine into use would be
injurious to the interests of hand-sewers. I found that the machine
would at that time be very unpopular, and, therefore, refused to use
it.”
The neglect of Hunt and Arrowsmith to procure a patent upon this sewing
machine was fraught with momentous consequences a few years later, not
only to them but to the entire sewing machine trade and the world at
large.
John J. Greenough, on February 21, 1842, procured the first sewing
machine patent in America of which any official record now exists. His
machine sewed with two threads, both of which were entirely passed
through the cloth at every stitch, the needles being pulled by pincers
through holes previously bored with an awl. It was designed principally
for leather work.
R. W. Bean, of New York City, patented a machine, March 4, 1843, for
making a “running” or basting stitch.
Another machine, having two threads and generally like Greenough’s, was
patented December 27, 1843, by George R. Corliss, of Greenwich, N. Y. It
had eye-pointed needles reciprocated in horizontal paths, through holes
previously made by awls, the goods being fastened between clamps and fed
in front of the needles.
[Illustration: [Furnace]]
Another form of sewing machine, of which several varieties were patented
between 1844 and 1850, adopted the somewhat primitive method of first
crimping the cloth and then forcing it upon the needle, which was driven
through a number of thicknesses at the same time, making a running
stitch.
In the year 1846, or over twelve years after Walter Hunt’s machine was
built, Elias Howe, Jr., having probably ascertained that Hunt had never
patented his machine, built a sewing machine upon the Hunt plan, adding
two puerile devices (both of which were subsequently abandoned as
useless), and procured a patent thereon in his own name. These devices
were a “clipping piece” to control the unwinding of the shuttle-thread,
and a “baster-plate,” to which the work was basted, and thus hung
vertically in front of the machine. This machine never became of real
utility until the inventions of Mr. Singer, five years later, had been
added to the principles of action applied originally by Hunt and
appropriated by Howe. After Singer’s inventions had been recognized as
giving to the sewing machine a practical and immense value, Walter Hunt
testified, under oath, as follows: “ELIAS HOWE _has several times stated
to me that he was satisfied that I was the first inventor of the machine
for sewing a seam by means of the eye-pointed needle, the shuttle and
two threads, but said that he had the prior right to the invention
because of my delay in applying for letters-patent._” In the year 1853,
Hunt applied for a patent upon his invention, but was refused upon the
ground of abandonment.
Judge Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, in delivering his decision
in May, 1854, upon the evidence in Hunt’s application, used the
following language: “Hunt claims priority upon the ground that he
invented the Sewing Machine previous to the invention of Howe. He
_proves_ that in 1834 or 1835 he contrived a machine by which he
actually effected his purpose of sewing cloth with considerable success.
Upon a careful consideration of the testimony, I am disposed to think
that he had then carried his invention to the point of patentability. I
understand from the evidence that HUNT actually made a working machine
in 1834 or 1835. The papers in this case show that _Howe_ obtained a
patent for substantially _this same invention_ in 1846.”
Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner was forced to refuse Hunt’s
belated application, for the reason that an Act of Congress in 1839 had
provided that inventors could not pursue their claims to priority in
patents unless application was made within two years from the date when
the first sale of the invention was made. Hunt had sold a machine in
1834, and had neglected to make application for his patent till 1853.
[Illustration:
THE SINGER COMPANY’S STEAMER, “EDWARD CLARK.”
]
Thus it was that one of the grandest opportunities of the century was
missed by the man who should rightfully have enjoyed it; the honors and
emoluments of the great sewing machine invention passed to a man who
neither had invented a single principle of action, nor applied a
practical improvement to principles already recognized; and Elias Howe,
Jr., acquired the power, by simply patenting another man’s invention, to
obstruct every subsequent inventor, and finally to dictate the terms
which gave rise to the great Sewing Machine Combination about which the
world has heard—and scolded—so much.
Howe’s machine was not, even in 1851, of practical utility. From 1846 to
1851 he had the field to himself, but the invention lay dormant in his
hands. He held control of the cardinal principles upon which the coming
machine must needs be built, and planted himself squarely across the
path of improvement—an obstructionist, not an inventor—and when, in
1851, Isaac M. Singer perfected the improvements necessary to make
Hunt’s principles of real utility, Howe, after long and expensive
litigation, laid Singer and all subsequent improvers under heavy
contribution for using the principles of Hunt, patented by himself.
Morey & Johnson procured a patent February 6, 1849, for a single-thread
machine, making a stitch by a hook acting in combination with a needle.
Lerow & Blodgett patented a machine October 2, 1849, the peculiar
feature of which was that the shuttle was driven entirely around a
circle at each stitch. This took a twist out of the thread at every
revolution, and was soon abandoned, but not before Howe had sued the
proprietors and laid them under tribute.
Allen B. Wilson invented a double-pointed shuttle, making a stitch at
each passage of the shuttle, which he patented November 12, 1850.
Grover & Baker, February 11, 1851, obtained a patent for a machine using
two needles, one passing through the goods and the other operating
beneath the cloth.
[Illustration:
THE OLD AND THE NEW.
]
Other patents, of more or less value, were obtained, but not yet had a
sewing machine of any practical working value been produced. Machines
had been made by hundreds, factories had been built for their
manufacture, territorial rights had been sold for machines that
contained more or less merit, but which would not and could not do
continuous stitching. The idea of a successful substitute for woman’s
deft fingers at sewing had come to be regarded much as the member of
Parliament viewed the project of an ocean steamship, when he offered to
“_eat_ the first ship that should cross the Atlantic by steam!” The
sewing machine had bitterly disappointed those who purchased it for use
in the household; it had bankrupted those who sought to manufacture; it
had turned to ashes upon the lips of those who bought territorial
rights. If any one had profited by it, it was the vendor of territorial
rights. Indeed, a sewing machine patentee named Blodgett told Singer he
was an idiot for presuming to make sewing machines to _sell_. They would
not work, and the only money to be made out of the business was in
“selling territorial rights.” Deep-seated distrust pervaded the public
mind, and well-deserved odium had settled upon the entire invention.
Such was the state of affairs when Isaac M. Singer turned his versatile
mind towards the Sewing Machine.