_"REMONSTRANCE"_
"Of the Citizens of New York against the renewal of Letters Patent
granted to Cyrus H. McCormick, June 21, 1834, for improvements in the
Reaping Machine.
"Among the early reaper inventors of this country, Mr. Obed Hussey, now
of Baltimore, stood for many years deservedly the most prominent, and he
has doubtless by his genius and indefatigable exertions (although in a
modest way) contributed more to the advancement of this invention than
any other man. He first tested his machine in 1833, and took out a
patent for it the 31st of December of that year.
"He first constructed his machine with a reel to gather the grain up to
the cutters, and throw it upon the platform; but on trial, with his
cutter, he thought it unnecessary and only an incumbrance, and,
therefore, threw it aside and has never used it since. The main
frame-work containing the gearing was suspended on two wheels about
three feet four inches in diameter. The platform was attached to the
rear of this frame, and extended out one side of it say six feet. The
team was attached to the front end of the frame and traveled at the side
of the standing grain as in Randall's machine. The cutting apparatus was
pretty much the same as now used in Hussey's machine. The knife is
constructed of steel plates, riveted to a flat bar of iron. These plates
are three inches broad at the end where they are riveted to the bar, and
four and a half inches long, projecting in front, and tapering nearly to
a point, forming what is described as a saw with very coarse teeth,
which are sharp on both edges. This cutter is supported on what he terms
guards, which are attached to the front edge of the platform or
cutter-bar (as termed by Hussey), one every three inches the whole width
of the machine, projecting horizontally in front about six or eight
inches. These guards have long slots through them horizontally through
which the cutter vibrates, and thus form a support for the grain whilst
it is cut, and protect the cutter from liability to injury from large
stones and other obstructions. The cutter is attached by means of a
pitman rod to a crank, which is put in motion by gearing connecting with
one or both of the ground wheels as may be desired, according to
circumstances, which gives to the cutter as the machine advances, a
quick vibrating motion; and each point of the cutter vibrates from the
centre of one guard, through the space between, to the centre of the
next, thus cutting equally both ways. As the machine advances, the grain
is readily cut, and the butts are carried along with the machine which
causes the tops to fall back upon the platform without the aid of the
reel. The grain to be cut was separated from that to be left standing by
means of a point projecting in front of the cutter, in the form of a
wedge, bearing the grain both inwards and outwards, with a board set
edgewise upon it, sloping downwards, to a point in front. The grain was
raked from the machine by a man riding upon it, in rear of the frame, at
the side of the cutter, nearly in range with the guards, with his back
towards the team, sometimes at the side and sometimes behind the
platform. Soon after this date Mr. Hussey changed the construction of
his machine somewhat, used one large ground wheel instead of two, placed
the platform alongside the frame, and placed his raker on a seat by the
side of the large ground wheel, facing the team, and raked the grain off
in rear of the platform.
[Sidenote: The Most Practical]
"This was for many years doubtless the most practical reaping machine
known, and, with the improvements that have been made upon it, from time
to time, it is now preferred to any other in many wheat growing sections
of the country."
[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Plea]
The fact and intensity of Mr. Hussey's struggles may, in part, be
gathered from his letter to Edward Stabler, dated March 12, 1854:
"Baltimore, March 12, 1854.
"My Esteemed Friend, Edward Stabler:--
"I think the work goes bravely on. I am unable to express my
estimation of thy disinterested efforts; I never before
experienced anything of the kind; it seems entirely new to me to
have any one go out of their way so much, to do so much for me. I
am not so much surprised at the progress thee makes considering
the man, as I am that any man could be found to do me such a
service. I hope thee will not get weary; I am sure thee will not.
I hope the Committee will not act so unjustly as to turn their
backs on all cases because there is 'rascality' in some; because
there is rascality in some cases, why should a just cause suffer?
The facts in my case can be easily proved. I made no money during
the existence of my patent, or I might say I made less than I
would have made if I had held an under-clerk's position in the
Patent Office; I would have been better off at the end of the 14
years if I had filled exactly such station as my foreman holds,
and got his pay, and would not have had half the hard work, nor a
hundredth part of the heart-aching. I never experienced half the
fatigue in rowing after a whale in the Pacific Ocean (which I have
often done) as I experienced year after year for eighteen years in
the harvest field, I might say twenty years, for I worked as hard
in England as I do at home, for in the harvest, wherever I am
there is no rest for me. If I am guilty of no rascality why should
I not be compensated for toiling to introduce an invention which I
thought to be of so much advantage to the World. I know I was the
_first_ one who successfully accomplished the cutting of
grain and grass by machinery. If others _tried_ to do it
before me it was not _doing_ it; being the first who ever did
it, why should I be obliged to suffer and toil most, and get the
least by it? No man knows how much I have suffered in body and
mind since 1833, on account of this thing, the first year I
operated it in Balto. Three years after I cut the first crop, I
could not go to meeting for many weeks for want of a _decent
coat_, while for economy I made my own coffee and eat, slept in
my shop, until I had sold machines enough to be able to do better;
there was no rascality in all that. My machines then cost me
nearly all I got for them when counting moderate wages for my own
labour. The Quaker who lent me the ninety dollars ten years
afterward would not then (ten years before) trust me for iron, one
who was not a Quaker did. There is one thing not generally
understood; thou will remember the trial at Lloyd's, thou
remembers also that I received the purse of 100 dollars; now what
would the world suppose I would do? Why that I would do like the
flour holders, _keep the price up_! But it is a fact and can
be proved, that after it was announced to me that the verdict was
in my favor I said to a gentleman _now I will reduce my price 10
dollars_, on each machine, _and I did it_, from that hour
and did not breathe my intention until after that decision was
announced to me! Where is the man who has done the like under
similar circumstances? There is no 'rascality' in that. Now I do
not believe that there is a reaper in the country (which is good
for anything) at so low a price as mine, and not one on which so
little profit is made.
"I will inclose a pamphlet which I suppose thee has already
seen--it may be useful.
"Thy friend,
(Signed) "OBED HUSSEY."
Mr. William N. Whitely, an early inventor and manufacturer of harvesting
machinery, who was for many years the king of the reaper business, and
who fought the Hussey extension "tooth and nail," on January 8, 1897,
wrote to the "Farm Implement News" upon the subject of McCormick's
portrait on the silver certificates, then about to be issued, in which
he refers also to Mr. Hussey, as follows:
[Sidenote: From the Pen of a Hussey Opponent]
"Editor 'Farm Implement News':
"Having been informed that the bureau of engraving and printing was
preparing new $10 silver certificates to be ornamented by the busts of
Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin, and C. H. McCormick, 'inventor
of the reaper,' I write you to say that it would manifestly be unjust to
credit the invention of the reaper to any one man. Mr. McCormick does
deserve great credit for his _enterprise_ and _business skill_
in the many years he was engaged in manufacturing harvesting machinery
and we are pleased to honor his memory; yet so much has been done in
bringing the reaper to its present state of perfection by the many
thousands of inventors that our government would make a mistake in
singling out Mr. McCormick from the many _meritorious_ ones who
have contributed so much to the reaper of the past and of the present
day. We well understand that no effort has been spared for many years
past in keeping C. H. McCormick before the American people as the
inventor of the reaper by his immediate relatives and friends, and we
have no right to find fault with such a course upon their part; but when
the great government of the United States of America proposes to certify
by the above mentioned course to the correctness of the claims made for
C. H. McCormick as the inventor of the reaper, to the disparagement of
so many other _worthy_ inventors and co-workers upon the reaper,
then those who know better should raise their voices against such an
attempted recognition for any one man, of whom the best that can be said
is that he was only one of the many.
[Sidenote: The Reaper Itself Mr. Hussey's Contribution]
"From 1831 to 1834, and for several years thereafter, two persons, i.e.,
Obed Hussey and C. H. McCormick, were striving to produce a successful
reaping machine for cutting grain and grass, as were many others, before
and since. These two men were contemporaneously in the field, and no
doubt they both labored faithfully to accomplish the desired result. The
invention of Obed Hussey, the features of which were embraced in his
first machine in 1832 and 1833, included all the principles of a
practical reaper. It was a side draft or side cut machine; that is, the
cutting apparatus extended out to one side, the animals drawing the
machine moving along by the side of the grain or grass to be cut. It had
two driving and supporting wheels, gearing extending rearward with a
crank and pitman therefrom to reciprocate the cutters, which were
scalloped or projecting blades from a bar and vibrated through slotted
guard fingers which held the stalks to be cut. The cutting apparatus was
hinged to the side of the frame of the machine to enable it to follow
the surface of the ground over which the machine was passing. A platform
was supported by an outer and inner wheel. The operator was seated upon
the machine and raked the grain into sheaves from the platform as it was
cut. Over sixty years have come and gone, yet all the essential features
of the first Hussey machine and all Hussey machines made thereafter
(which were large numbers) employed substantially these devices. The
machine was successful the first time it was completed, and ever after
were the Hussey machines successful in harvesting grain and grass. The
fundamental principles of all harvesting machinery of the world to-day
were furnished by Obed Hussey's invention and patent of 1833; and while
very many and valuable improvements have been made thereon for
harvesting grain and grass, for which credit should be given to the
worthy inventors who followed after Hussey, yet we must not ignore his
valuable contribution, '_the reaper_.'
"Cyrus H. McCormick's first patent was dated in 1834. This was known as
a push machine with a straight cutter, the operator walking by the side
of the machine and raking the grain from the platform. Other
modifications in after years were made on this machine by Mr. McCormick;
and it may be said that the inventive genius of Obed Hussey and the
business tact and skill of C. H. McCormick produced and brought into
practical use the first successful reaping machine of this or any other
country.
[Sidenote: Whose Machine Still Lives?]
"Whatever might have been embodied in the first McCormick machine or in
his experiments or machines for the first fifteen years of his efforts,
the _reaper of the present day does not disclose any principles_
contained in these early efforts of C. H. McCormick; but that cannot be
said of Hussey. _All_ reaping machines of the present day embody
substantially _all_ of the vital principles given by Obed Hussey in
1833 and at different periods thereafter. The Patent Office, as well as
other sources of information, make good these statements.
"Passing, however, from the early history up to the present time, when
the present mowing machines and grain binding machines are seen in
operation, and taking into account the thousands of patents that have
been issued to American inventors for various features that they have
brought out, it would be but simple justice that all be recognized as
contributors to the building up of such valuable and important pieces of
machinery; and I cannot but repeat that it would be very unjust, unfair
and un-American to single out one person, and that one Mr. McCormick, as
a representative to be used by the government printing bureau, when it
is so well known what he did and what he did not do in the invention of
the reaper. It would be a false monument; it would only be respected by
persons who are ignorant of the facts.
"If this should succeed, it would not be the first time, as likely it
will not be the last time, in the history of mankind where those who did
the work were soon forgotten and those who were more fortunate in being
held up and prominently kept before the public by their friends or
powerful allies received unjustly the credit."
[Sidenote: Early Ventures in Manufacture]
[Sidenote: An Unfortunate Delay]
It will be seen from the foregoing extracts that Mr. Hussey's machines
went early into the field in such quantities as he and other little
manufacturers throughout the country, some of whom ignored the exclusive
rights granted him, could put them out. They were simple, and a few
castings were all that was necessary, except lumber, which was plenty in
the forests of the East and in the groves of the West, to enable a
country wagon maker and blacksmith to put machines into the field. Many
of the earlier inventors, who began the manufacture of reapers of their
own invention, followed that course and castings were sometimes brought
from great distances. Mr. Hussey applied for an extension of his 1833
patent, but, not knowing the exact requirements, his application was
offered too late, sixty days before the expiration of the patent being
the time allotted. Knowing, we presume, but little about law, and still
less about "the rules and regulations of the Patent Office"--for all his
time, and constant labor with his own hands, were required in the
workshop to earn a bare support,--but being very desirous to obtain an
extension of his Patent before it should expire, and also having some
personal acquaintance with Commissioner Ellsworth, Hussey's first
application was made to him in 1845, a short time previous to his going
out of office; certainly not less than twelve months before the
expiration. This is proved by the annexed letter:
"La Fayette, Ia., July 3, 1854.
"Dear Sir:--
"Your letter of some weeks since, referring to a conversation I
had with you while I was Commissioner of Patents, relative to the
extention of your patent for a Reaper, would have been answered
earlier, but for absence and extreme pressure of business."
"If my recollection will aid you, I most cheerfully state, that
before your patent expired, you consulted me as to the extension
of the same. I replied that it was better to postpone an
application until near the time the patent would run out, for the
Office must estimate the profits of the invention during the whole
term; and you accordingly postponed it. I regret you postponed it
too long. The publication of thirty days before the patent
expired, was a rule as published by myself. If you have lost your
opportunity for relief through (the) Patent Office, you must of
course go to Congress. I have always regarded your improvement as
valuable, and that the country is greatly indebted to your
persevering efforts, notwithstanding the obstacles presented.
"Yours respectfully,
"HENRY L. ELLSWORTH.
"Mr. Obed Hussey, Balto., Md."
Hussey acted on this official advice, and did "postpone an application
until near the time the patent would run out"--literally so, for he was
not advised of even the "thirty days' rule."
[Sidenote: Why Mr. Hussey's Application Was Late]
When he again applied, and not "until near the time the patent would run
out," Edmund Burke was Commissioner of Patents. He states in a letter to
Senators Douglas and Shields, under date March 4th, 1850, as follows:
"In relation to the patent of Hussey, if my memory serves me, his patent
expired some time within the latter part of December, 1847. During that
month, and within some ten or twelve days before the expiration of his
patent, he applied to me as Commissioner of Patents for an extension. I
informed him, that inasmuch as the act of Congress prescribed the mode
in which patents should be extended; required a reasonable notice to be
given to the public in sundry newspapers, published in those parts of
the country most interested against such extension; and as the board had
decided that 'reasonable' notice should be a publication of the
application for extension three weeks prior to the day appointed for the
hearing, there was not time to give the required notice in his case; and
I advised Mr. Hussey not to make his application, and thus lose the fee
of $40 required in such cases, as he inevitably would, without the least
prospect of succeeding in his application--but to petition Congress for
an extension, which body had the power to grant it."
[Sidenote: An Able and Unanswerable Report]
"Washington, 5th Sept., 1854.
"Obed Hussey, Esq., Baltimore:--
"My Dear Sir: I have recently learned, with surprise and indignation,
that certain speculating harpies who fill their coffers with the
products of other men's brains, and who, in your case, seek to 'reap
where they sow not' are basely and unjustly endeavoring to prevent
a renewal of your patent for your Reaping and Mowing Machine,' upon
the ground [among others] that you and your agents have neglected to
press your Claim properly before Congress.
"I have been your Agent from the time the claim was first presented
to Congress, and know that the Charge is entirely unfounded.
"The facts according to the best of my recollection and belief, are
as follows: Your Claim for a renewal was presented to Congress at the
very first Session, after you ascertained that your application to the
Commissioner could not be acted upon under the rules of the Patent
Office. Every paper and proof necessary to establish your right to a
renewal of your patent, under the existing laws, was procured, and
promptly placed with your memorial, before Congress. No further proof
was required by the Committee on Patents, in the Senate, and your
right to a renewal was fully established by an able and unanswerable
report of that Committee, accompanied by a bill for a renewal. This
report and bill were printed by order of the Senate, and were noticed
as a part of the proceedings of Congress, by the press throughout the
United States, and every body thus notified of your application.
[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Methods]
"From that period to the present time, I do not think there has been
a single Congress at which all proper efforts were not made to
obtain the action of that Body. Members were not annoyed with
indecent importunity; nor were any powerful combinations of
interested individuals resorted to, to force your Claim upon the
consideration of Congress. This was not in accordance with your
taste, or your means. I well remember, however, that you frequently
visited this City on that business; and that at almost every
session, you either brought or sent to me, to be laid before
Congress, some new evidence of the triumph of your great invention.
These documents were faithfully laid before that body, or sent to
the senators from Maryland for that purpose. On one occasion, as
your agent, I addressed a somewhat extended communication to the
Senators from Maryland, attempting to show the vast importance of
your invention to the Agricultural interests of the United States,
and the strong claims you had to a renewal of your patent, and
requested them as the Representatives of your State in the Senate,
to give their attention and influence to accomplish that end.
"At a subsequent Session, this request was repeated, to one or both
of the Senators from that State.
"I can also state with certainty that hardly a Session of Congress
has passed since your memorial was first presented, at which
prominent and Scientific Agriculturalists, in different parts of the
Country, who were acquainted with the merits of your invention, have
not used their influence with Members of Congress to obtain a
renewal of your patent. Any pretense, therefore, that your Claim has
not been duly presented, notified to the public, and urged with all
proper care and diligence upon the attention of Congress, I repeat
is totally unfounded.
"It will be a stain upon the justice of the Country, if one whom
truth and time must rank among its greatest Benefactors, shall be
stricken down and permitted to die in indigence by the interested
and unworthy efforts thus made to defeat you.
"You are at liberty to use this statement in any manner you may
desire.
"Very truly and respectfully,
"Your Ob't Ser'vt,
"CHA'S E. SHERMAN."
Although not coming in the natural order of events, I quote from an
enclosure found in a letter written to Hon. H. May, evidently a member
of Congress. Mr. Hussey having failed to apply for an extension of his
1833 patent early enough, a bill was introduced in Congress with an
extension in view. In some correspondence between Mr. Hussey and the
Hon. H. May an enclosure is found reading as follows:
[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Defense]
"During the examination of my case in the Committee-room on the 21st
inst. you asked me a question, and accompanied it with a remark to the
effect 'Why could I not raise a company in Baltimore with sufficient
capital and make as many machines as Howard & Co. and compete with them
on equal ground? The excitement of the occasion disqualified me for
giving a full reply to your question and remarks. I was at the time so
impressed with the injustice and the great hardship of being compelled
to compete with the world for what of right belonged to myself
exclusively that I had not the words to express my feelings. Could any
gentleman look back twenty-one years and see me combating the prejudices
of the farmers, and exerting the most intense labor of body and mind,
and continuing to do so from year to year, at the very door of poverty,
and also look back on those New York parties through the same period,
accumulating wealth by the usual course of business, and perhaps
watching my progress, and waiting for the proper moment to step in with
their money power and grasp the lion's share of the prize which justly
belongs to myself. If they could look back on the circumstances and
comprehend the case in all its reality and truth I should have no fear
of a just decision by the Committee in the House of Representatives. The
Government which can tolerate and uphold such a state of things would
appear to me to be a hard Government.
"The end and design of the Patent Laws was to reward the inventor for a
valuable invention by giving him the exclusive right to make and vend
the article which he had invented and fourteen years was deemed a
sufficient time in which to secure that reward. The telegraph was
perfect on its first trial. It required no improvement. On the contrary,
half the wire was dispensed with. The Government was at the cost of
trying the experiment and has since heaped wealth on the inventor. My
fourteen years were required in perfecting my invention without any
return for time and labor. (The finishing touch to his cutting apparatus
is, no doubt here referred to, and shown in his patent of 1847.)
[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Protest]
"Public opinion on the subject of valuable inventions is liberal until
an obscure individual appears in the community claiming the reward for a
valuable invention; the disposition then seems to be to let him shrink
into a corner. The world has got the advantage of his labors and has no
further use for him; every unreasonable man in the community will at
once claim an equal right with the inventor of the device and one not
content to urge their claims by misrepresentation but must heap abuses
on the poor inventor who they have in a great measure pushed out of
their way. The idea that a wise Government, of an enlightened country,
can not only look on and suffer such injustice but will actually
encourage it by disregarding the prayers of the poor inventor is a
mystery to those who build their hopes on the dogma that '_Truth is
mighty and will prevail_.' I hope the Committee will not pass lightly
over my case but duly consider, as I believe they will, to whom the
advantages of this invention belongs, whether to me or to the parties in
New York. My chief aim in addressing this to you is to endeavor to draw
a parallel between myself and the parties in New York, and thereby
secure your good opinion in my favor."
[Sidenote: Farmers Using Hussey Reaper]
Edward Stabler, on January 11, 1854, wrote to Hon. Henry May as follows:
"As requested I have examined the petitions of the 450 farmers who
advocate the extension of Hussey's patent and from a personal
acquaintance or by character with much larger portion in Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, and on reliable information of
those from New York--234 in number--I am satisfied that they are
wheat-growers to an amount of not less than from four to 500,000 bushels
annually. * * * They used Hussey's reaper, and some of them three and
four, or more of these great labor-saving implements."
Mr. Edward Stabler writes to Henry May, under date March 19, 1854:
"The most that I fear is that Hussey's interests (which all appear
willing to admit is a meritorious case) may suffer in the contests that
I am satisfied will take place with regard to Moore & Haskell's and
McCormick's extensions. I should be greatly pleased, and have stronger
hopes if Hussey's case could be acted on promptly and before that
contest begins.
"On the ground of its having been so long and so favorably reported on,
by the Senate's Committee in '48--six years next May, possibly it could
be called up at an earlier date,--the sooner the better, to avoid
competition from interested parties, and which I certainly anticipate if
long delayed in either House of Congress. Honestly believing the cause
just and right, for no fee, however large, could tempt me to advocate
what I thought unjust or wrong, I shall persevere as long as there is
ground for hope. If we fail I shall have pleasing reflections, doing
unto others as you would that they under similar circumstances should do
unto you."
Mr. Edward Stabler, on February 5, 1854, wrote to J. A. Pierce, member of
one of the Committees, a letter from which the following is extracted:
[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Character and Service]
"I will, however, preface my remarks by saying that I have no connection
whatever with his business operations nor pecuniary interest in his
affairs, but being well acquainted with him I am free to say, that I
have known no man on whose word I have placed more implicit reliance, no
one more honestly entitled to what he asks for.
"He has faithfully devoted the prime of his life, and no small portion
of it either, in the invention and the perfecting of the reaping and
mowing machine; and his untiring perseverance has certainly been crowned
with success so far as to confer a signal and lasting benefit on his
country; but unfortunately he has derived no corresponding advantage for
himself, and from no fault on his part.
[Sidenote: Opinion of an Able Mechanic]
[Sidenote: Mr. Stabler's Testimony]
"While C. H. McCormick has literally fattened on the agricultural public
by the sale of his inferior and cheaply made machines--for such I do
consider them, both from my own observations and the report to me by
those who have been induced to purchase them--Hussey has been pirated on
from all quarters, and others reaping the reward of his labors. And I
perceive by the papers on file, and accompanying the printed report (No.
16) that this same C. H. McCormick has actually petitioned against the
renewal of Hussey's patent. It is really a very hard case, that a poor
man and one of the most deserving in the community in every sense of the
term, should thus fail of a just reward when he has done so much for the
benefit of others. * * * Believing as I do that the extension is no more
than sheer justice to Obed Hussey,--quite equal in merit to any that has
been granted,--as one of the _most meritorious_ in the language of
the Committee, I do most earnestly solicit thy kind aid and influence to
get it through the Senate. * * * He was then (and still is) a comparatively
poor man; without the means from his limited sales to extend his business
in a profitable manner or to protect his known and acknowledged rights
from the depredations of others. His shops--and I speak from personal
knowledge--are for the most part dilapidated sheds--too confined and
cramped up to do any part of his work to the best advantage, and from a
personal knowledge speaking as a practical machinist of some 25 years
experience, I do know that his profits are far less than some other
machine makers--not the half of what is usually supposed.
[Sidenote: The Two Machines Compared]
"Take, for example, the machines as usually made by Obed Hussey and C. H.
McCormick--for I am familiar with both; owing to the quality of the work,
costs of material and arrangement of the mechanism, _two_ of McCormick's
can be made by him for little or no more than the cost to Hussey of _one_
of his. Such, too, is the statement on oath of competent men employed by
both manufacturers. McCormick's foreman and clerk have sworn (see
petition from New York against his extension) that his machines are made
for some $35 to $40 each. Any man who will undertake to make and sell
Hussey machines as he makes them for much less than double this sum, will
soon beg his bread if he depends on his profits to buy it, unless he
_cheats_ his hands out of _their_ part."
A postscript is added, which reads:
"I should have made no allusion to C. H. McCormick or to his machines,
had he not volunteered by petition to injure his rival--in my opinion a
most worthy, reliable and deserving man--and I would add that in my
estimation the two machines differ just about as widely as the two men."
We may assume that Mr. Hussey must have begun on his large machine late
in 1832, or early in 1833, at latest. During the early part of the
harvest of 1833 he was in the field. "The machine was started," Stabler
tells us, "but owing to some part giving way, or some slight defect not
apparent until then, it at first failed to work satisfactorily. One
burly fellow present picked up a reaping cradle and, swinging it with an
air of great exultation, exclaimed, 'This is the machine to cut the
wheat!'" Another account charges the breakage to a fractious team.
[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Triumph]
"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 day of July, 1833."
The secretary of the Society wrote an exceedingly favorable report. The
group of spectators present at this trial drew up a testimonial that was
very favorable indeed. On July 2, 1833, then, we are warranted in
saying, the problem that had so long exercised the minds of inventors
was solved.
[Sidenote: The Hussey Reaper in the Field]
[Sidenote: Public Tests]
Fortunately Mr. Hussey was not as easily discouraged as many. He, no
doubt, felt chagrined that his machine had broken down, but had the
pluck then and there to make an effort to close the hooting mouths, and
fully succeeded. In 1834 other machines were put out. We learn from the
Genesee Farmer, dated December 6, 1834, that Mr. Hussey, the inventor of
a machine for harvesting wheat, had left in the village one of his
machines for the purpose of giving the farmers an opportunity to test
its value. During the harvest of 1834 it was operated in the presence of
hundreds of farmers with most satisfactory results. We next find Mr.
Hussey at Palmyra, Mo., on July 6, 1835, with two of his machines, at
the farm of his old friend, Edwin G. Pratt. The machine "excited much
attention, and its performance was highly satisfactory." The results of
the trials were published in the "Missouri Courrier" in August or
September of 1835. The machines were sold for $150 each. A Mr. Muldrow
bought another kind of machine, however, in which the cutting was done
by a "whirling wheel" and paid $500 for it. In 1836 Mr. Hussey was in
Maryland, at the written solicitation of the Board of Trustees of the
Maryland Agricultural Society. The fame of his reaping machines in the
state of New York, and the far West, had spread, "though with something
like a snail's pace," as new things did two-thirds of a century ago. The
machine was operated at Oxford, Talbot County, on the 1st of July, in
the presence of the Board and a considerable number of other gentlemen.
Its performance was perfect, as it cut every spear of grain, collected
it in bunches of the proper size for sheaves and laid it straight and
even for the binder. On the 12th of July a public exhibition was made at
Easton, under the direction of the Board; several hundred persons,
principally farmers, being present. This same machine was sold to Mr.
Tench Tilghman, for whom it cut 180 acres of wheat, oats and barley
during that season. The report of the Board of Trustees of the Maryland
Agricultural Society stated that "three mules of medium size worked in
it constantly with as much ease as in a drag harrow. They moved with
equal facility in a walk or trot." In 1837 the machines were sold in
various parts of the country. One at Hornewood, Md., one at West River,
and several others throughout the state. One of the machines sold in
1838 to the St. George's and Appoquinomick Ag. Society cut several
hundred acres of grain, up to 1845, and was then in good repair. In all
this time the cost for repairs was only 1-1/4c per acre. The popularity
of the machine became so pronounced that other inventors were given
courage, and those who before had failed were prompted to pick up their
work where they had dropped it or begin on newer lines.
[Illustration: Silver medal awarded to Mr. Hussey for the Reaper at
Baltimore in 1845.]
[Sidenote: A Hussey-McCormick Contest]
In 1843 we find that Hussey's machine was in a field-contest with one
brought in by Cyrus H. McCormick of Rockbridge County, Va. We say
brought in, because the claim that it was in fact invented and made by
_Robert McCormick_ seems to be quite well founded. (Memorial of
Robert McCormick.) The contest took place on the farm of a Mr.
Hutchinson, about four miles above the city of Richmond. Mr. Hussey had,
for a number of years, been building two sizes of machines, and at the
first day's trial was obliged to use a small one because his only large
machine within reach was elsewhere occupied. The majority of the
self-appointed committee of bystanders reported in favor of McCormick's
machine, but Mr. Roane, one of them, who signed very reluctantly, later
bought a Hussey machine. A few days after, at Tree Hill, Mr. Hussey was
present with his large machine.
In the "American Farmer" was soon after published a letter from Mr.
Roane, dated January 23, 1844, to Mr. Hussey, in which, among other
things, he says:
[Sidenote: Mr. Roane's Letter]
"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 in 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 purpose." (Records of U.S. Patent Office.)
[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Not a Business Man]
No one will claim that Mr. Hussey was what may be termed a good business
man; like most inventors, his mind was on what he sought to accomplish
rather than on the hoarding of wealth. I have already quoted from
correspondence that passed between him and his friends, when attempting
to get his 1833 patent extended.
An early manufacturer, well known to Mr. Hussey and who paid royalties
under Mr. Hussey's patents, writes:
"Mr. Hussey's early machines were made by Jarvis Reynolds of Cincinnati,
Ohio," we are informed by Mr. William N. Whitely, who early became
familiar with many of the facts, he having opposed Hussey's extension
application, "in a shop on the river front, beginning in 1831 or '32.
After making that operated in 1833 he built several others during two or
three years or more. Some of the early ones were taken to Glendale,
Ohio, to the farm of Algernon Foster."
"The first machine taken there had a reel on it, but after using it a
short time the reel was laid aside. On the same machine was an extra
platform, attached to the rear, so that the raker could deliver the
grain to one side. The machines were intended for both reaping and
mowing." Mr. Whitely states that he saw two of the machines still on Mr.
Foster's farm in 1860, that had been there since, probably, 1835.
"The machines were at first bought by farmers who did cutting for the
neighbors and under the circumstances were anxious to prostrate as many
acres of grain per day as possible; in order to accomplish this, they
applied four horses and moved on a 'jog trot.' So moving the reel was
found of little service because the rapidly moving machine caused the
severed straws to fall backward on the platform so that the raker had
little to do but to remove it, except where it was particularly badly
lodged; in such cases he manipulated his rake as it is now used on all
reelless reaping machines."
After building the machines for Algernon Foster, Mr. Hussey undertook
the manufacture of two or more machines for the harvest of 1835. From a
letter received from John Lane, we quote:
[Sidenote: A Contract]
"'Old Judge Foster' was a well known jurist and judge of court in
Hamilton County, Ohio, having his country home (a farm) 3-1/2 miles near
due east from my father's place of business, and it was he who
introduced Obed Hussey to John Lane as being a mechanic who could and
would make for him the reaper he was at that time seeking to have made
in Cincinnati. Also it was agreed between said Hussey and Foster that
when said reaper had been made and tested to their satisfaction in the
standing grains, his sons, Algernon and brother (whose name I do not
remember) would pay all costs of making said reaper and put the same in
use to best of their ability."
I quote from the book entitled "Valley of the Upper Wabash, Indiana,"
published by Henry Ellsworth in 1838:
"Another material reduction of the expense attending the cultivation of
hay and other crops will be found in the use of some of the mowing and
reaping machines recently invented.
[Sidenote: Editorial Comment]
"A machine of this description, invented by Mr. Obed Hussey, of Cambridge,
Maryland, has of late excited general admiration, from the neatness and
rapidity of its execution, and the great amount of labor which its use
will save. Its introduction on large farms, of the description we have
mentioned, will undoubtedly be followed by remarkable results. These
machines, when in good order (and they seldom need repair), can cut from
twelve to fifteen acres of grass, and from fifteen to twenty acres of
wheat, daily.
"The following letter from John Stonebraker, Esq., of Hagerstown,
Maryland, will exhibit his experience in the use of this machine.
"He was induced (as the writer knows from personal communication with
him on the subject) to try it from the representations of others, and
with many misgivings as to the result. That trial, however, has
satisfied him and with him, many of his neighbors, of the great utility
of the machine.
"The letter is as follows:
"'Hagerstown, August 15, 1837.
"'Dear Sir: Will you please give this a place in your paper,
for the benefit of wheat growers. As the subject is of public
interest, it is hoped that other papers will circulate it through
the grain growing districts of the country.
[Sidenote: A Hussey Testimonial]
"'I procured a reaping machine this summer of Mr. Hussey, the
inventor, which I have used through my wheat harvest. It was in
constant use every day, and performed its work to my satisfaction,
and far better than I had any expectation of when I first engaged
it of Mr. Hussey. When the ground is clear of rocks, loose stones,
stumps, etc., and the grain stands well, it cuts it perfectly
clear, taking every head; and, if well managed, scatters none, but
leaves it in neat heaps ready for binding. When the grain is flat
down, the machine will of course pass over it; but if it be
leaning, or tangled only, it is cut nearly as well as if standing,
excepting when it leans from the machine, and then if the horses
are put in a trot it will be very well cut. But in cutting such
grain much depends on the expertness of the hand who pushes off
the grain, in making clean work and good sheaves. I found the
machine capable of going through anything growing on my wheat
land, such as weeds and grass, no matter how thick.
"'After my harvest was over, I cut my seed timothy with the same
neatness and ease that I did my grain. As respects the durability
of the machine, I can say this much for my machine, that not the
least thing has given out yet; it appears as strong as a cart, and
but little liable to get out of order, if well used. I was advised
by Mr. Hussey of the necessity of keeping some of the parts well
greased; this I have punctually attended to, and no perceptible
wear yet appears, beyond the ordinary wear of any other machinery.
[Sidenote: Durability of the Machine]
"'It is immaterial to the machine whether the speed be a walk, or
trot; although a walk will make the most perfect work. My speed
was a common walk, but a trot is sometimes necessary to counteract
the effect of a strong wind when blowing from behind, in order to
incline the grain backwards, on to the platform, to make good
bundles. A quick walk is required to make good work in very short
and scattering grain. The machine performs well, up or down hill,
provided the surface be not too broken. By its compactness and
ease of management, rocks, and stumps too high to be cut over, can
be easily avoided. Although a rough surface is very objectionable,
yet I have cut over very rocky ground with no material difficulty.
I can say one thing which to some may appear incredible, but it is
not the less true; the cutters of my machine have not been
sharpened since I have had it; nor have I yet seen any appearance
of a need of it in the quality of its work. How many harvests a
machine would cut without sharpening is hard to say. I propose
sharpening mine once a year only. I have used two horses at a time
in the machine, and sometimes changed at noon; they worked it with
ease, the draught being light. I took no account of what I cut in
any one day, with this exception: in less than half a day I cut
six acres, and was often detained for want of the requisite number
of binders, by which much time was lost. My machine being
something narrower than those generally made by Mr. Hussey, I
could cut but about one acre in going two miles; this, at the
moderate gait of two and a half miles per hour, would amount to
twelve and a half acres in ten hours; and at four miles per hour,
a speed at which the work is done in fine style, the amount would
be twenty acres in ten hours. I should judge my quantity per day
to range between ten and fifteen acres, yet I am decided in the
opinion that I can cut twenty acres in a day, of good grain, on
good ground, by the usual diligence of harvest hands, with a
little increase of my usual speed, and a change of horses. Two
hands are required to work the machine, a man to push off the
grain and a boy to drive, besides a number of binders,
proportioned to the quantity cut. As the machine can be drawn
equally fast in heavy or light grain, the number of binders is
necessarily increased in heavy grain, except an additional speed
be given in light grain. Under every circumstance, the number of
binders will vary from four to ten; and, when the usual care is
practiced by the binders, there will be much less waste than in
any other method of cutting.
[Sidenote: A Labor-Saving Machine]
"'I speak with more confidence of the merits and capacity of Mr.
Hussey's reaping machine, from the circumstance of having pushed
the grain off myself for several days, in order to make myself
practically and thoroughly acquainted with it, before putting it
into the hands of my laboring men. The land in this country being
rather rocky and uneven, it is hard to say what may be the
ultimate advantage of these machines to our farmers; but from what
little experience I have had, I am resolved not to be without one
or two of them. I can therefore recommend the machine with
confidence, especially to those who have a large proportion of
smooth ground in cultivation. It is undoubtedly a labor saving
machine, and worthy of their attention.
'JOHN STONEBRAKER.
'Mr. Bell, Editor of the Torch Light.'
"To this testimonial from one of the best and most practical farmers in
Maryland could be added many more, should they be needed. Farther
improvements on the part of the inventor, during the past year, have
much increased the power of the machine; and its adoption, as a valuable
agricultural implement, is becoming very general.
[Sidenote: Other Testimonials]
"One of these machines is now in the possession of the writer, which
arrived too late for use during the harvest of the present season. From
one or two trials, however, and those under the disadvantageous
circumstances of arranging a new machine, and the forced selection of a
spot little suited for experiment, no doubt remains of the result.
"We add a letter to the inventor from Colonel Tilghmann, who also
resides near Hagerstown, Maryland.
"'September 15, 1837.
"'Sir: Your wheat cutting machine was used by me in securing my
clover seed. With one man, three boys, and two horses, we cut
about twelve acres per day. The operation was in every respect
complete. The clover was well cut, and deposited in proper sized
heaps, and no raking required, further than to remove the heaps of
cut clover from the track of the machine. The whole operation was
easily performed by the hands and the horses.
"'In the operation of cutting wheat, I followed the machine for
two hours in the field of Mr. John Stonebraker, during the late
wheat harvest, and can vouch for the operation in securing his
wheat in the manner described in his publication. The late
improvements made by you in your machine have added greatly to the
beauty and facility of its operation.
'Yours respectfully,
'F. TILGHMANN.'
'Mr. Hussey.'
"We add the following notice of this machine, from Messrs. S. and E. P.
Le Compte, enterprising farmers, of Cambridge, Maryland, as follows:
"'Cambridge, July 3, 1838.
"'We have employed Mr. Obed Hussey's wheat cutting machine to cut
for us about thirty-four acres; the greater part of which was very
heavy. We were remarkably well pleased with the performance of
said machine, and are of opinion that, with proper management and
attention, it will cut twenty acres per day, and save it much better
than any other mode of cutting we have ever tried.
"'S. & E. P. LE COMPTE.'
"To which is appended the following postscript:
"'I have been a practical farmer forty years; and am well satisfied,
that, on a large farm, this machine will save wheat enough, beyond
the scythe and hooks, to pay all the expense of cutting and binding.
'SAMUEL LE COMPTE.'"