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.

[Illustration: Silver medal won by Mr. Hussey with the Reaper at New

York in 1852.]

[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.

[Illustration: Bronze medal won by Mr. Hussey with the Reaper at New

York in 1853.]

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.

[Illustration: Diagram Showing Arrangement of Guards and Knives]

[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."

[Illustration: Gearing of Hussey's Early Reapers.]

[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.

The following three letters not only embrace the year 1837, but are

equally good evidence from that period to the present, 1854. As they are

short, and to the point, we use them all. The very appropriate and just

remarks of Col. Hughes as regards the rights, and what is due to

inventive talent, we most cordially respond to; as must every right

minded and disinterested reader. He refers to Col. Edw. Lloyd of "Wye

House" as the largest wheat grower in Maryland; we much doubt if he is

not the largest in the Union. Several years since, he informed us that

his average crop of wheat was from 33 to 35 thousand bushels; and a year

or two ago we learned that the crop exceeded forty thousand bushels. He

now, and for many years past has used Hussey's Reaper exclusively. More

satisfactory and conclusive evidence cannot be given, or desired, than

is afforded in these three letters, of the early use, and long proved

efficiency of the invention.

"Hornewood, E. Shore, Md.,

"August 22, '54.

"Dear Sir:--In reply to your enquiry whether I recollect the time,

and the success of your reaping machine at my father's in 1837, I

answer that I do perfectly; and also seeing it in operation in

company with my friend, Mr. J. H. Luckett, of Balto., at Col. H.

L. Edmondson's of Talbot Co. the same season.

"My father expressed himself highly satisfied with the performance

of the reaper, as did other gentlemen who saw it in operation at

Cheston. So well convinced was my father of the value of the

machine, that he offered you a considerable advance per acre on

your charge for cutting, to remain and reap his two fields, say

125 to 130 acres, which you declined, owing to prior engagements.

At an early date after this trial, my father secured one of your

reapers, and the farm has since never been without.

"My brother, Dr. DeCourcy, has now one which did its work most

excellently well this past harvest, and without any stoppage. With

some trivial repairs, it has been in successful use nearly ten

years.

"Wishing you every possible success with your reaper, for which

the agricultural community owe you a heavy debt,

"I am respectfully yours,

"N. H. ROZIER DE COURCEY."

"Baltimore,

"October 17th, 1854.

"_To Obed Hussey, Esq.:_

"Sir--In the harvest of 1837 I saw one of your Reapers in operation

in my neighborhood [West River, Anne Arundel Co., Md.] in charge of

the Hon. John C. Weems, who I believe was the owner of it; and was

so much pleased with its performance that I ordered one from you in

the following year, 1838, which you set in motion for me. It worked

most admirably, and fully met my expectations; _as it has done from

that early period to the present day_.

"In a loose way, I estimated that in the saving of labor, and grain

from shattering, it nearly or quite paid for itself the first

harvest. Since then the machine has been much improved.

"Up to the time I purchased, very few had been used in this State.

The first, as I have always understood, was bought by that

intelligent and enterprising farmer, Gen. Tench Tilghman, of

Oxford, Talbot County. In 1838, Col. Edward Lloyd, of 'Wye,' Talbot

Co., the largest wheat grower in Maryland, and myself, as above

mentioned, availed ourselves of your invention; but I did not hear

of any other orders for it in this State. It came, like most other

agricultural implements, slowly into use; and I fear has not fairly

compensated you for the labor and ingenuity bestowed upon it. This,

however, is too often the fate of discoverers and inventors; and

others reap the fruits of their toil and genius. I have long

thought that governments were unjust to inventors; and could never

understand why a man has not the same right of property to a

machine conceived in his head, and constructed by his hands, as to

that acquired in any other manner. The same that a farmer has to

the lands he owns.

"Very respectfully, y'r ob't serv't,

"GEO. W. HUGHES."

"Oxford, Md.,

"Sept. 22d, 1854.

"_Mr. Obed Hussey:_

"Dear Sir:--I recently received from the Commissioner of Patents

the Report on Mechanics for 1853, and have examined with much

interest the descriptions of what claim to be improvements in the

Reaping Machine.

"I was rather surprised to find that so many of then were almost

identical with the notions which were tried and rejected during

the season you spent with me nearly twenty years ago; when for the

first time (I believe) a reaper was used throughout our entire

harvest, on a farm as large as six hundred acres.

"You had just then arrived from Cincinnati with two machines--one

a reaper, and the other a reaper and mower.

"They were exhibited publicly at Oxford and Easton, and their

operation on wheat gave entire satisfaction. The work throughout

the harvest was equally well done; the only objection being the

delay caused by repairing the machinery, a difficulty common to

all new machines of much power at that period.

"Since then I have used one or more reapers every year, and have

watched with much interest the progress of their improvement. I

have examined most of those which have the best reputation, and do

not believe there is a single one in which the cutting principle

has not been copied from yours.

"In attempting to avoid an infringement of your patent, variations

have been made either in the cutting apparatus, or the driving

machinery, by which they have been made more complicated and less

efficient. Burrall's, which approaches nearest to yours in

simplicity and efficiency, is so close a copy that I do not see

how the courts could refuse an injunction to prohibit the use of

it. The only material difference is the attempt at a side delivery

which was tried by you on your first machine, and proved an entire

failure.

[Sidenote: The Farmers' Debt to Mr. Hussey]

"Believing sincerely that the farmers of the U.S. owe you a debt

of gratitude, which a regard for themselves should prompt them to

pay, and understanding that attempts have been made to question

even the priority of your invention, I send you a volume of the

_Genesee Farmer_ published in 1834, which will show the

opinion entertained at that time by the farmers of that celebrated

wheat growing region, both as to the efficiency and priority of

your reaper.

"Your ob't serv't,

"TENCH TILGHMAN."

[Sidenote: Conclusive Evidence]

As we have already much exceeded the intended limits of the narrative,

we might, perhaps, with propriety, here rest the enquiry, having, as we

think, satisfactorily shown, and by evidence that cannot be disproved:

first, that for a period of nine or ten years after the alleged

invention of the reaper by C. H. McCormick in 1831 he did not sell a

single machine; nor could he establish by all the evidence adduced

before the Board of Extensions, in 1848, that prior to 1840 or 1841 was

his reaper in any degree an effective or practical machine; for as he

himself states in the letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., it was not

until very material alterations--all essential it may be said--were

made, some six or eight years after the date of the patent, could the

machine be made to work even tolerably well. Indeed, he states, "I may

say they were not of much practical value, until the improvements of my

second patent in 1845," being eleven years after the date of the patent,

and fourteen years after the alleged invention in 1831.

On the other hand we have shown by as good and respectable testimony as

can be had in any cause, that from 1833 to 1854, a period of twenty-one

years, Hussey's invention was most efficient and satisfactory, _every

year_; not by cutting a patch of the fraction of an acre, but by

reaping hundreds, nay thousands of acres annually, by the few machines

placed in the hands of the farmers from 1833 to 1840.

As, however, we have given no direct evidence from Delaware, or

Virginia, none from North Carolina, and but one from New York, we annex

a few short testimonials from each, that embrace the period from 1838 to

1845; and with a few more of the same respectable character up to 1853,

both in this country and in England, we will leave the decision of the

question to the intelligent reader. We will, however, call the reader's

attention to the concluding paragraph of Maj. J. Jones' letter, from

Delaware--one of the smallest States, but containing as large a

proportion of noble minded, talented men, and as good practical farmers,

as any in the Union.[5]

[5] It is reported of one of her sons, that during the struggle

for Independence, when a Delegate to the Convention from one of the

largest and most powerful Colonies was ready to quail and almost

despair of success in the unequal contest, he was encouraged and

cheered on by a member from little Delaware; and told that when he

found his Colony likely to be overrun by the enemy, to call on

Delaware for aid--she would lend a helping hand.

It will be perceived that a reaper sold in 1838 to the St. George's and

Appoquinomick Agricultural Society had, after subsequently coming into

the possession of Col. Vandergrift, and prior to 1845, "cut about

_seven hundred acres_ of his grain," and "was then in good repair"!

We wish it was in our power to state how many times seven hundred acres

this single machine had reaped since 1838.

[Sidenote: An Important Testimonial from Delaware]

"Wheatland, Del.,

"July 21, 1845.

"_Mr. Hussey:_

"Dear Sir:--I have just finished cutting my oats; I finished

cutting my wheat on the 28th of June, having cut over 160 acres,

excepting what was cut by a cradle in opening tracks for the

horses and rounding the corners so that the machine might sweep

round without loss of time in turning, which it did with ease and

certainty, cutting more than twenty acres a day on an average. A

part of the wheat was so heavy as to require three active shockers

to keep up with the cutting; the whole cost of all necessary

repairs 31-1/4 cents for the harvest.

"Of the two machines which I purchased of you I used the large

one, having sold the small one to Richard Millwood, who rents the

farm of Dr. Noble. Strange as it may appear, I could find no

_landholder_ in the vicinity who had enterprise enough to

risk the purchase of that machine until they could see it work;

but after the performance was once witnessed, the impression it

made was such as to justify me in ordering you to have ten ready

by next harvest for New Castle County, Del. Mr. Millwood's wheat

was very heavy, one measured acre having sixty dozen sheaves upon

it, and the whole cutting time on the forty acre field was but two

days, making for the small machine a full average of twenty acres

per day, without any repairing or accident. None of the hands who

worked it had ever seen such a machine before those you sent to

me. My crop has not all passed through the half bushel yet, but it

will fall but little short of 3,000 bushels--expect it will all be

in market to-morrow.

"In conversation with Col. Vandergrift, the present owner of the

Reaper you sold to the St. George and Appoquinomick Agricultural

Society, in 1838, he told me that he had cut about 700 acres of

wheat and oats with it since he owned it, and up to that time the

cost of repairs had been $1.25 for every hundred acres cut. It was

then in good repair.

"Yours,

"JOHN JONES."

"Jefferson County, Va.,

"August 9th, 1845.

"_To Mr. Obed Hussey:_

"Dear Sir:--We, the undersigned, having used your reaping machine

during the recent harvest in cutting our respective crops, take

great pleasure in tendering to you this voluntary testimonial of

the very high estimation in which we hold your invention. We have

now tried your machines fully and fairly, and we are unanimous in

the conclusion that in every case they have borne the test in a

manner which has excited our highest admiration of their merits.

We were particularly pleased with their work in lodged grain; they

cut and gather every straw with the utmost ease, and the only

fault at all that we have had to find with them was that they did

not cut wet grain with facility; this single defect, however, we

are pleased to perceive you have completely remedied with the late

improvement (with open guards to the knives, etc.) which the most

of us saw at work in Mr. Wm. Butler's field cut wet grain and

green oats as well as could possibly be desired--it will also cut

timothy and clover--so that now we have no hesitation in

recommending your reaper, as we hereby most cordially do, to our

brother farmers, as the most complete and efficient in

agricultural operations, and as one which, whilst from its simple

and substantial construction, is not liable to be broken or to get

out of order, will at the same time save its owner the first year

more than its original cost.

"WM. BUTLER,

J. H. TAYLOR,

W. SHORTT,

JOSEPH M'MURRAN,

DANIEL G. HENKLE,

DAVID L. HENSELL,

W. G. BUTLER,

JAS. S. MARKELL,

V. M. BUTLER,

ANDREW M'INTIRE,

ADAM SMELL,

GEORGE TABB,

JOHN MARSHALL."

"Washington County,

"Aug. 7th, 1845.

"I hereby certify that I have used Mr. Obed Hussey's wheat cutter

through the late harvest, and that it answered my fullest

expectations, in every respect, except that it will not cut when

the wheat is _damp from rain or the dews of the morning_. I

cut 140 acres of wheat with it in nine days; and on one occasion,

cut off thirty acres in eighteen hours, from daylight in the

morning until 11 o'clock the next day, and with the same four

horses, never having changed them during that time.

"JOHN R. DALL."

[Illustration: Hussey's Rear-Delivery Reaper.

(From "Who Invented the Reaper?" by R. B. Swift.)]

"Oaklands (near Geneva), N. Y.

"26th August, 1845.

"_Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore:_

"Dear Sir:--Having housed all the grain crops of this farm, it is

due to you that I should now frankly admit the removal of all my

doubts in regard to the effectiveness and excellence of your

'Reaping Machine.' The doubts expressed in my early correspondence

with you arose from the many abortive attempts in this country and

in England to produce a reaping machine, possessing power and

simplicity and durability; most of them were complicated, and

proved too fragile.

"Soon after the arrival of your machine, I tried its power and

became readily familiar with the manner of using it; the result of

my experience will appear from the following facts:

"The wheat crop of this farm covered 104 acres, producing 2,540

shocks, 30,480 sheaves, as counted on the ground, and again when

housed in the grain barn and sheds.

"The whole crop was cut by your reaping machine in eight days,

using one team, a boy to drive and a man to manage the machine.

"The average quantity cut per day was thirteen acres.

"The largest quantity cut on any one day was seventeen acres.

"The longest period for working the machine on any one day was

nine hours.

"Seven men were stationed on the field to bind the sheaves.

"The cost of _cutting_ the wheat with your machine is

_twenty-five cents_ per acre.

"The total cost for cutting, raking, binding and shocking is

_seventy-eight cents and a fraction_ per acre.

"The cost may be stated as follows, viz: