Interest on cost of machine and for wear and tear,
say at 10 per cent 10.00
______
$26.00
"Which is equal to 25 cents per acre on 104 acres. The seven men
employed to rake and bind received, each, $1 per day for eight
days, say $56, which sum added to the cost for cutting or reaping,
gives a total cost of $82, or 78-88/100 cents per acre.
"I have compared this cost with the cost paid by my neighboring
farmers this season, and find it vastly in favor of your machine.
The individual in this town who harvested with the most economy
paid $1 13/100 per acre--other farmers have paid from $1 25/100 to
$2 per acre.
"Since the wheat harvest the machine has cut with signal advantage
about twenty acres of oats.
"The wheat and oats were cut with such neatness and precision that
the gleanings were not sufficient to pay the labor of raking.
"The machine remains in perfect order, and did not fail to perform
all you promised.
"I deem it one of the best labor-saving machines ever offered for
the advantage of the farmer; its effectiveness, simple and durable
construction, have been witnessed with satisfaction by a large
number of my neighbor farmers.
"Respectfully yours,
"J. DELAFIELD."
The machine alluded to in the above letter is the low priced one at $100.
For 1846, 1847 and 1848 we copy from the _Richmond Planter_ and
_American Farmer_--and all from North Carolina, though the evidence
from other sections is much more extended, and equally as conclusive:
"Somerset Place, Washington Co.,
"North Carolina 25th Aug. 1847.
"_To the Editor of the American Farmer:_
"Dear Sir:--Yours of the 6th ult. arrived at my residence during
my absence in consequence of which I was unable to return you an
answer in time for your August number of the _American
Farmer_. I trust, however, the delay will not materially affect
the value of my communication. In consequence of the
recommendation of a gentleman who had used "Hussey's Reaper" in
the harvest of 1846 with much satisfaction, I was induced to make
a trial of one the present season. It was put in operation under
the direction and supervision of Mr. Hussey himself, upon a field
of reclaimed low ground, originally Cypress Swamp, which of course
could only be cultivated in beds--these beds were six feet wide,
including the water-furrow between, and were intersected at
intervals of about fifty yards by drains, known to us as
_tap-ditches_, which cross the water furrows at right angles,
and are cut from two to four inches deeper than the furrows
themselves. I am particular in describing the land, as I had
always supposed that an insuperable obstacle in the way of the
regular action of any machine would be found in the irregularity
of surface into which our land is necessarily thrown by our system
of culture. The machine surmounted every anticipated difficulty,
and was eminently successful, both in cutting lengthwise with the
beds and across them. The wheat was cut in a most thorough manner;
nothing escaped the cutting surfaces, nor did weeds or any other
obstruction of the kind hinder the machine from doing its work
perfectly. During the running of the machine one day in the
harvest, seventeen acres of wheat were cut by it.[6] This was done
by using relays of horses, four at each time, the same hands being
employed, however, and the working time was twelve hours. After a
heavy rain we were obliged to abandon the use of the machine,
owing to the fact that the ground became so soft that the "road
wheel" as it is termed, buried in the soil, and would become
clogged with mud. This difficulty can, I have no doubt, be easily
overcome by increasing the "tread" of this wheel, and making some
slight alteration in the cog-wheel which gears into it.
[6] When Mr. Hussey was with me I informed him that the piece of
wheat cut by the machine on this occasion equalled twenty acres,
but I have since discovered that I had been mistaken in my
calculation of the acre.
[Sidenote: A McCormick Failure]
"Some two years since I saw an experiment made upon an adjoining
estate with McCormick's machine; it cut occasionally well where
the wheat was free from weeds, but any obstruction from that
source would immediately choke it, when of course the wheat would
be overrun without being cut. The experiment proved a failure, and
the machine was laid aside. The blade in this machine appears to
me to be too delicate in its cutting surface to succeed, except
under the most favorable circumstances. Quite a number of
McCormick's have been in use in this part of the country during
the last two years, and to my inquiries concerning them I have
received but one answer and that an unfavorable one. The few of
Hussey's machines, on the contrary, that have been employed within
my ken, have in each instance given entire satisfaction. I do not
hesitate to say that when well managed, with a skilful hand at the
rake, in dry wheat (I do not recommend it when the straw is wet),
it will, as compared with _ordinary_ cutting, save per acre
the _entire expense of reaping_, from the thorough manner in
which every stalk is cut, thus preventing loss or waste.
"Believing, as I do, that a great desideratum to those who grow
wheat upon a large scale, is to be found in Mr. Hussey's reaper, I
cannot but wish that both he and they may _reap_ the benefit
of its general adoption.
"I am, sir,
"Very respectfully your ob't serv't,
"JOSIAH COLLINS."
"Edenton, N. C.,
"January 25th, 1848.
"_To the Editor of the American Farmer:_
"Dear Sir:--Some months ago I received a letter from you, making
enquiries of me relative to Hussey's Reaping Machine. When your
letter reached me I was on the eve of leaving home for the summer,
and since my return home, my engagements have been of such a
character as to cause me until the present to neglect replying to
it.
"I have used one of Hussey's machines one season, and though under
circumstances not very favorable for the machine, I take pleasure
in stating that its operation was satisfactory. During my harvest,
which was about three weeks' duration, this machine was kept
constantly at work, with the exception of a day and a half, yet I
did not ascertain how many acres it would reap. Mr. Collins, of
Lake Scuppernong also used one last season, and from him I learned
that he cut upwards of twenty acres a day.
"There is certainly much less wheat left in the field by one of
these machines than is by the ordinary method of reaping by the
scythe or reap hook; it cuts close, lays the straw smoothly, thus
rendering tying of it in sheaves much easier.
"I have witnessed McCormick's, which I consider _a poor
affair_, and _meriting no consideration_ except a dissent
from me. Many of this last kind of reaper found their way here a
few years ago; they now, or rather their remains, may be seen
lying in the field whence they will never be removed.
"THOS. D. WARREN."
[Illustration: Modern Rear-Delivery Reaper.
(From "Who Invented the Reaper?" by R. B. Swift.)]
From the Richmond Planter.