Chapter II: Part 2

Fortunately Mr. Hussey was not as easily discouraged as many. He, no doubt, felt chagrined that his machine had broken down, but had the pluck then and there to make an effort to close the hooting mouths, and fully succeeded. In 1834 other machines were put out. We learn from the Genesee Farmer, dated December 6, 1834, that Mr. Hussey, the inventor of a machine for harvesting wheat, had left in the village one of his machines for the purpose of giving the farmers an opportunity to test its value. During the harvest of 1834 it was operated in the presence of hundreds of farmers with most satisfactory results. We next find Mr. Hussey at Palmyra, Mo., on July 6, 1835, with two of his machines, at the farm of his old friend, Edwin G. Pratt. The machine "excited much attention, and its performance was highly satisfactory." The results of the trials were published in the "Missouri Courrier" in August or September of 1835. The machines were sold for $150 each. A Mr. Muldrow bought another kind of machine, however, in which the cutting was done by a "whirling wheel" and paid $500 for it. In 1836 Mr. Hussey was in Maryland, at the written solicitation of the Board of Trustees of the Maryland Agricultural Society. The fame of his reaping machines in the state of New York, and the far West, had spread, "though with something like a snail's pace," as new things did two-thirds of a century ago. The machine was operated at Oxford, Talbot County, on the 1st of July, in the presence of the Board and a considerable number of other gentlemen. Its performance was perfect, as it cut every spear of grain, collected it in bunches of the proper size for sheaves and laid it straight and even for the binder. On the 12th of July a public exhibition was made at Easton, under the direction of the Board; several hundred persons, principally farmers, being present. This same machine was sold to Mr. Tench Tilghman, for whom it cut 180 acres of wheat, oats and barley during that season. The report of the Board of Trustees of the Maryland Agricultural Society stated that "three mules of medium size worked in it constantly with as much ease as in a drag harrow. They moved with equal facility in a walk or trot." In 1837 the machines were sold in various parts of the country. One at Hornewood, Md., one at West River, and several others throughout the state. One of the machines sold in 1838 to the St. George's and Appoquinomick Ag. Society cut several hundred acres of grain, up to 1845, and was then in good repair. In all this time the cost for repairs was only 1-1/4c per acre. The popularity of the machine became so pronounced that other inventors were given courage, and those who before had failed were prompted to pick up their work where they had dropped it or begin on newer lines.

[Sidenote: A Hussey-McCormick Contest]

In 1843 we find that Hussey's machine was in a field-contest with one brought in by Cyrus H. McCormick of Rockbridge County, Va. We say brought in, because the claim that it was in fact invented and made by _Robert McCormick_ seems to be quite well founded. (Memorial of Robert McCormick.) The contest took place on the farm of a Mr. Hutchinson, about four miles above the city of Richmond. Mr. Hussey had, for a number of years, been building two sizes of machines, and at the first day's trial was obliged to use a small one because his only large machine within reach was elsewhere occupied. The majority of the self-appointed committee of bystanders reported in favor of McCormick's machine, but Mr. Roane, one of them, who signed very reluctantly, later bought a Hussey machine. A few days after, at Tree Hill, Mr. Hussey was present with his large machine.

In the "American Farmer" was soon after published a letter from Mr. Roane, dated January 23, 1844, to Mr. Hussey, in which, among other things, he says:

[Sidenote: Mr. Roane's Letter]

"Averse as I am to having my name in print on _this_, or any other occasion, I cannot with propriety decline a response to your inquiry. I had never seen or formed an idea of a reaping machine until I went to Hutchinson's. I was surprised and delighted with the performance of each of them, and fully resolved to own one of them by the _next_ harvest, but their performance that day left me in a state of doubt which I should select. The report spoke in terms of high praise of each machine, and I consented to its award, that on the whole Mr. McCormick's was preferable, merely because being the cheapest, and requiring but two horses, it would best suit the majority of our farmers, who make small crops of wheat on _weak land_, for I doubted its capacity in _heavy_ grain. After this report was made I heard your complaint that you did not have a fair trial, because being unable to bring into the field your large improved reaper, which was up the river, you were compelled to comply with your _engagement_ for the day, with a _small_ and _inferior_ machine, drawn by an indifferent and untutored team. Mr. Hutchinson's wheat was badly rusted, and therefore light. I had ready for the scythe a low ground field of heavy and well matured grain; partly to expedite my harvest work, and partly to renew the trial, that I might solve my doubts as to the merits of these machines, I succeeded in engaging them to be at Tree Hill on a named day. They both came agreeable to appointment, Mr. McCormick bringing the machine he used at Hutchinson's, and you bringing the one you could not on that occasion bring down the river. The day was fine, and both machines did their best, and had a very fair trial. My doubts were fully removed, and my mind convinced that in the heavy wheat we raise on our river low grounds, rich bottoms, etc. _your_ machine is superior to Mr. McCormick's of which I still think highly. I accordingly ordered one of yours to be made for the approaching harvest.

"I wish you all possible success in cutting hemp in the 'Great West.' It must be very desirable to cut that valuable plant instead of pulling it up by the roots, and I cannot doubt that your reaper has _ample_ power for the purpose." (Records of U.S. Patent Office.)

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Not a Business Man]

No one will claim that Mr. Hussey was what may be termed a good business man; like most inventors, his mind was on what he sought to accomplish rather than on the hoarding of wealth. I have already quoted from correspondence that passed between him and his friends, when attempting to get his 1833 patent extended.

An early manufacturer, well known to Mr. Hussey and who paid royalties under Mr. Hussey's patents, writes:

"Mr. Hussey's early machines were made by Jarvis Reynolds of Cincinnati, Ohio," we are informed by Mr. William N. Whitely, who early became familiar with many of the facts, he having opposed Hussey's extension application, "in a shop on the river front, beginning in 1831 or '32. After making that operated in 1833 he built several others during two or three years or more. Some of the early ones were taken to Glendale, Ohio, to the farm of Algernon Foster."

"The first machine taken there had a reel on it, but after using it a short time the reel was laid aside. On the same machine was an extra platform, attached to the rear, so that the raker could deliver the grain to one side. The machines were intended for both reaping and mowing." Mr. Whitely states that he saw two of the machines still on Mr. Foster's farm in 1860, that had been there since, probably, 1835.

"The machines were at first bought by farmers who did cutting for the neighbors and under the circumstances were anxious to prostrate as many acres of grain per day as possible; in order to accomplish this, they applied four horses and moved on a 'jog trot.' So moving the reel was found of little service because the rapidly moving machine caused the severed straws to fall backward on the platform so that the raker had little to do but to remove it, except where it was particularly badly lodged; in such cases he manipulated his rake as it is now used on all reelless reaping machines."

After building the machines for Algernon Foster, Mr. Hussey undertook the manufacture of two or more machines for the harvest of 1835. From a letter received from John Lane, we quote:

[Sidenote: A Contract]

"'Old Judge Foster' was a well known jurist and judge of court in Hamilton County, Ohio, having his country home (a farm) 3-1/2 miles near due east from my father's place of business, and it was he who introduced Obed Hussey to John Lane as being a mechanic who could and would make for him the reaper he was at that time seeking to have made in Cincinnati. Also it was agreed between said Hussey and Foster that when said reaper had been made and tested to their satisfaction in the standing grains, his sons, Algernon and brother (whose name I do not remember) would pay all costs of making said reaper and put the same in use to best of their ability."

I quote from the book entitled "Valley of the Upper Wabash, Indiana," published by Henry Ellsworth in 1838:

"Another material reduction of the expense attending the cultivation of hay and other crops will be found in the use of some of the mowing and reaping machines recently invented.

[Sidenote: Editorial Comment]

"A machine of this description, invented by Mr. Obed Hussey, of Cambridge, Maryland, has of late excited general admiration, from the neatness and rapidity of its execution, and the great amount of labor which its use will save. Its introduction on large farms, of the description we have mentioned, will undoubtedly be followed by remarkable results. These machines, when in good order (and they seldom need repair), can cut from twelve to fifteen acres of grass, and from fifteen to twenty acres of wheat, daily.

"The following letter from John Stonebraker, Esq., of Hagerstown, Maryland, will exhibit his experience in the use of this machine.

"He was induced (as the writer knows from personal communication with him on the subject) to try it from the representations of others, and with many misgivings as to the result. That trial, however, has satisfied him and with him, many of his neighbors, of the great utility of the machine.

"The letter is as follows:

"'Hagerstown, August 15, 1837.

"'Dear Sir: Will you please give this a place in your paper,
for the benefit of wheat growers. As the subject is of public
interest, it is hoped that other papers will circulate it through
the grain growing districts of the country.

[Sidenote: A Hussey Testimonial]

"'I procured a reaping machine this summer of Mr. Hussey, the
inventor, which I have used through my wheat harvest. It was in
constant use every day, and performed its work to my satisfaction,
and far better than I had any expectation of when I first engaged
it of Mr. Hussey. When the ground is clear of rocks, loose stones,
stumps, etc., and the grain stands well, it cuts it perfectly
clear, taking every head; and, if well managed, scatters none, but
leaves it in neat heaps ready for binding. When the grain is flat
down, the machine will of course pass over it; but if it be
leaning, or tangled only, it is cut nearly as well as if standing,
excepting when it leans from the machine, and then if the horses
are put in a trot it will be very well cut. But in cutting such
grain much depends on the expertness of the hand who pushes off
the grain, in making clean work and good sheaves. I found the
machine capable of going through anything growing on my wheat
land, such as weeds and grass, no matter how thick.

"'After my harvest was over, I cut my seed timothy with the same
neatness and ease that I did my grain. As respects the durability
of the machine, I can say this much for my machine, that not the
least thing has given out yet; it appears as strong as a cart, and
but little liable to get out of order, if well used. I was advised
by Mr. Hussey of the necessity of keeping some of the parts well
greased; this I have punctually attended to, and no perceptible
wear yet appears, beyond the ordinary wear of any other machinery.

[Sidenote: Durability of the Machine]

"'It is immaterial to the machine whether the speed be a walk, or
trot; although a walk will make the most perfect work. My speed
was a common walk, but a trot is sometimes necessary to counteract
the effect of a strong wind when blowing from behind, in order to
incline the grain backwards, on to the platform, to make good
bundles. A quick walk is required to make good work in very short
and scattering grain. The machine performs well, up or down hill,
provided the surface be not too broken. By its compactness and
ease of management, rocks, and stumps too high to be cut over, can
be easily avoided. Although a rough surface is very objectionable,
yet I have cut over very rocky ground with no material difficulty.
I can say one thing which to some may appear incredible, but it is
not the less true; the cutters of my machine have not been
sharpened since I have had it; nor have I yet seen any appearance
of a need of it in the quality of its work. How many harvests a
machine would cut without sharpening is hard to say. I propose
sharpening mine once a year only. I have used two horses at a time
in the machine, and sometimes changed at noon; they worked it with
ease, the draught being light. I took no account of what I cut in
any one day, with this exception: in less than half a day I cut
six acres, and was often detained for want of the requisite number
of binders, by which much time was lost. My machine being
something narrower than those generally made by Mr. Hussey, I
could cut but about one acre in going two miles; this, at the
moderate gait of two and a half miles per hour, would amount to
twelve and a half acres in ten hours; and at four miles per hour,
a speed at which the work is done in fine style, the amount would
be twenty acres in ten hours. I should judge my quantity per day
to range between ten and fifteen acres, yet I am decided in the
opinion that I can cut twenty acres in a day, of good grain, on
good ground, by the usual diligence of harvest hands, with a
little increase of my usual speed, and a change of horses. Two
hands are required to work the machine, a man to push off the
grain and a boy to drive, besides a number of binders,
proportioned to the quantity cut. As the machine can be drawn
equally fast in heavy or light grain, the number of binders is
necessarily increased in heavy grain, except an additional speed
be given in light grain. Under every circumstance, the number of
binders will vary from four to ten; and, when the usual care is
practiced by the binders, there will be much less waste than in
any other method of cutting.

[Sidenote: A Labor-Saving Machine]

"'I speak with more confidence of the merits and capacity of Mr.
Hussey's reaping machine, from the circumstance of having pushed
the grain off myself for several days, in order to make myself
practically and thoroughly acquainted with it, before putting it
into the hands of my laboring men. The land in this country being
rather rocky and uneven, it is hard to say what may be the
ultimate advantage of these machines to our farmers; but from what
little experience I have had, I am resolved not to be without one
or two of them. I can therefore recommend the machine with
confidence, especially to those who have a large proportion of
smooth ground in cultivation. It is undoubtedly a labor saving
machine, and worthy of their attention.

'JOHN STONEBRAKER.

'Mr. Bell, Editor of the Torch Light.'

"To this testimonial from one of the best and most practical farmers in Maryland could be added many more, should they be needed. Farther improvements on the part of the inventor, during the past year, have much increased the power of the machine; and its adoption, as a valuable agricultural implement, is becoming very general.

[Sidenote: Other Testimonials]

"One of these machines is now in the possession of the writer, which arrived too late for use during the harvest of the present season. From one or two trials, however, and those under the disadvantageous circumstances of arranging a new machine, and the forced selection of a spot little suited for experiment, no doubt remains of the result.

"We add a letter to the inventor from Colonel Tilghmann, who also resides near Hagerstown, Maryland.

"'September 15, 1837.

"'Sir: Your wheat cutting machine was used by me in securing my
clover seed. With one man, three boys, and two horses, we cut
about twelve acres per day. The operation was in every respect
complete. The clover was well cut, and deposited in proper sized
heaps, and no raking required, further than to remove the heaps of
cut clover from the track of the machine. The whole operation was
easily performed by the hands and the horses.

"'In the operation of cutting wheat, I followed the machine for
two hours in the field of Mr. John Stonebraker, during the late
wheat harvest, and can vouch for the operation in securing his
wheat in the manner described in his publication. The late
improvements made by you in your machine have added greatly to the
beauty and facility of its operation.

'Yours respectfully,

'F. TILGHMANN.'

'Mr. Hussey.'

"We add the following notice of this machine, from Messrs. S. and E. P. Le Compte, enterprising farmers, of Cambridge, Maryland, as follows:

"'Cambridge, July 3, 1838.

"'We have employed Mr. Obed Hussey's wheat cutting machine to cut
for us about thirty-four acres; the greater part of which was very
heavy. We were remarkably well pleased with the performance of
said machine, and are of opinion that, with proper management and
attention, it will cut twenty acres per day, and save it much better
than any other mode of cutting we have ever tried.

"'S. & E. P. LE COMPTE.'

"To which is appended the following postscript:

"'I have been a practical farmer forty years; and am well satisfied,
that, on a large farm, this machine will save wheat enough, beyond
the scythe and hooks, to pay all the expense of cutting and binding.

'SAMUEL LE COMPTE.'"

I next quoted again from the "Valley of the Upper Wabash, Indiana:"

HUSSEY'S GRAIN CUTTER

"Report of the Board of Trustees of 'The Maryland Agricultural Society,' for the Eastern Shore, on the machine for harvesting small grain, invented by Mr. Obed Hussey, of Cincinnati, Ohio.

[Sidenote: Invitation of Agricultural Board]

[Sidenote: How the Reaper Worked]

"The favorable accounts of the operation of this implement in several of the Western States, induced the board to invite Mr. Hussey to bring it to Maryland, and submit it to their inspection. It was accordingly exhibited in Oxford, Talbot county, on the first of July, in presence of the board, and a considerable number of other gentlemen. Its performance may justly be denominated perfect, as it cuts every spear of grain, collects it in bunches of the proper size for sheaves, and lays it straight and even for the binders. On the 12th of July a public exhibition was made at Easton, under the direction of the board; several hundred persons, principally farmers, assembled to witness it, and expressed themselves highly satisfied with the result. At the Trappe, where it was shown by the inventor on the following Saturday, an equal degree of approbation was evinced. It was afterwards used on the farm of Mr. Tench Tilghman, where 180 acres of wheat, oats, and barley were cut with it. Three mules of medium size worked in it constantly, with as much ease as in a drag harrow. They moved with equal facility in a walk or a trot. A concise description of this simple implement will show that it is admirably adapted to the important purpose for which it was invented. Resting on two wheels, which are permanently attached to the machine, and impart the motion to the whole, the main body of the machine is drawn by the horses along the outer edge of the standing grain. As the horses travel outside of the grain, it is neither knocked down or tangled in the slightest degree. Behind the wheels is a platform (supported by a roller or wheel), which projects beyond the side of the machine five feet into the grain. On the front of the edge projecting part of the platform is the cutter. This is composed of twenty-one teeth, resembling large lancet blades, which are placed side by side, and firmly riveted to a rod of iron. A lateral motion is imparted to it by a crank, causing it to vibrate between two rows of iron spikes, which point forward. As the machine advances, the grain is cut and falls backwards on the platform, where it collects in a pile. A man is placed on the part of the platform directly behind the horses, and with a rake of peculiar construction pushes off the grain in separate bunches, each bunch making a sheaf. It may appear to some that the grain will accumulate too rapidly for this man to perform his duty. But, upon considering the difference between the space occupied by the grain when standing, and when lying in a pile after it is cut, it will be evident that the raker has ample time to push off the bunches even in the thickest grain. In thin grain he has to wait until sufficient has collected to form a sheaf.

"The machine is driven around the grain, which may be sown either on a smooth surface or on corn ridges. For the first round a way may be cleared with a cradle; but this is deemed unnecessary, for the grain, when driven over, is left in an inclined position, and by cutting it in the opposite direction as much of it is saved as with a cradle. Fourteen acres in corn lands were cut between 10 A. M. and 7-1/2 P. M. The hands had never worked with the machine before, nor was it a trial day's work; for, owing to the shortness of the straw, the machine was not allowed to cut when passing over the ridges from one side of the ground to the other, and this time was consequently lost. From the principle on which the cutting is performed, a keen edge to the cutter is by no means essential. The toughest weeds, an occasional corn stalk, or a stick of the thickness of a man's little finger, have been frequently cut without at all affecting its operation; it can be sharpened, however, in a few minutes with a file. The width of the swath may be increased by having the cutter made longer, and the same machine will cut a stubble of several different heights.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Awarded Silver Cups]

"There is ample room to make the different parts of any size, though the strength of every part has been fully tested. The machine has been often choked by oyster-shells getting into the cutter, in attempting to cut too low a stubble. The motion of the machinery being checked, the main wheels slide on the ground; the strain on every part being equal to the power exerted by the horses. It can be managed by any intelligent, careful negro. We deem it a simple, strong, and effective machine, and take much pleasure in awarding unanimously the meritorious inventor of it a handsome pair of silver cups.

"ROBERT H. GOLDSBOROUGH, SAMUEL STEVENS, SAMUEL T. KENNARD, ROBERT BANNING, SAMUEL HAMBLETON, Senr., NICHOLAS GOLDSBOROUGH, EDWARD N. HAMBLETON, JAMES LI. CHAMBERLAIN, MARTIN GOLDSBOROUGH, HORATIO L. EDMONSON, TENCH TILGHMAN."

Mr. Lane goes on to say that one of the machines was taken to La Porte, Indiana, and there put to work. Another was sent to Illinois.

"The turning and fitting for these machines was done at the mill of Henry Rogers, about 500 yards away from the little shop. In the following copy of a recent affidavit sent us, date not given, these last matters are sufficiently substantiated."

Mr. Lane continues:

[Sidenote: The True Inventor]

"Who invented the Reaper? The full, honest answer is that Obed Hussey invented the Reaper.

"Between April and July, 1835, John Lane and Henry Rogers (with Isaac and Clark Lane assisting in the work) at their respective places of business one mile north of Mt. Healthy, Hamilton County, Ohio, made to order of Obed Hussey one Reaping machine for S. F. and Algernon Foster, then of the same County and State. Said Reaper was made to conform to or with drawings and patterns made and furnished by the said Obed Hussey, who also superintended the work of making the machine, and witnessed its trial in the field near the middle of June, 1835, in presence of many farmers, mechanics and others near by where the same was made; and when and where it was delivered to the Messrs. Foster's, who took this same reaper to La Porte County, Indiana, for the reaping season of the same year.

"For the iron and steel work done as aforesaid books in my possession show that fifty-three and 69/100 dollars was paid by Messrs. Fosters, July 6th, 1835, to John Lane and by him receipted for in full, etc., etc.

"The cutting device we then made for this machine evidently was the invention of Obed Hussey; and it was as near exactly the same in all material parts to the cutting device now universally in use, as the hand made sickle could then or now be made. The sections of sickle were forged steel blades V shaped, having serrated or sickle cut edges, and riveted to vibrating bar passing through slotted fingers, substantially riveted to the apron or table upon which the cut grain fell in position to be raked, or 'forked off.'

"This Obed Hussey machine cutting in a good average stand of barley, June, 1835, was light draught for two horses and left as clean and as evenly cut stubble behind it as the best of machines now do the same work. But one fault, if any, with this first reaper was _the lack of one or more cogs_ in the driving wheel that gave motion to the sickle, which required the team to walk a bit too fast for teams of habitual, or slow motion.

(Signed) "CLARK LANE."

[Sidenote: McCormick Late in the Field]

[Sidenote: McCormick's Application Rejected]

Regarding one who became a competitor of Hussey, much can be gathered from the U.S. Patent Office. McCormick, who came comparatively late in the field, when applying for an extension of his patents made many admissions which were afterwards shown to dispute that he had accomplished a successful machine before Mr. Hussey and others. He tells us in his petition and brief to the Commissioner of Patents that he had operated his machine in some late wheat in the harvest of 1831, but that, although he was sometimes flattered, he was often discouraged; that he did not make sales or sell rights because not satisfied that the reaper would succeed well. He was not sufficiently satisfied of its being a "useful" machine to patent the reaper; he tells us that its construction and proportions were imperfect and its cutting apparatus defective on account of liability to choke. He admits that the cutting "proved not sufficiently certain to be relied upon in all situations" until "the improvement in the fingers and reversed angle of the teeth of the sickle" shown in his patent of 1845 were adopted. A farmer ordered a machine to be delivered in 1841, but McCormick "did not then feel that it was safe to warrant its performance." These facts are found in the records of the United States Patent Office. Referring to Mr. Hussey, on whose patent, among others, McCormick's application for an extension was rejected, who proved to be a factor he must consider, he said: "I did not interfere with him because I did not find him very much in the way, calculated to beat him without, and supposed it might be best to do so." Mr. Hussey, no doubt, took the charitable view and supposed Mr. McCormick to have meant that his proofs would have been sufficient to support him in his own rights. Mr. Hussey, the Quaker, wrote the Board to whom McCormick's application for an extension had been referred, and from his letter I quote:

"In view of all these facts, I feel justified in asking your Honorable Board a decision, which, while it adjudges McCormick's machine according to its merits, will not be prejudicial to my interests, seeing that Mr. McCormick makes no claims to the grand principle in my machine, which makes it valuable, and so much better than his, which principle I claim as my invention.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Attitude]

"I had no intention, neither had I any desire, to place any obstacle in the way of the extension of McCormick's patent, but the course he has taken, before your Board and before Congress, has compelled me to act in self defense, by which I have given your Honorable Board much trouble, which I would have gladly avoided."

Mr. McCormick also said to the Board: "If my claim be made out as so far appears from the evidence presented, it will be observed (as I think) that nothing will be left of Mr. Hussey's claim to which he is entitled, and all the improvements he has added since his patent have, I believe, been taken from mine." Reference is no doubt had to the effect that Hussey, in some of his machines, used only a single drive wheel and balanced his machine thereon. He confessed that he never received profits from his first patent until after twelve years of study, and never should have realized anything from the invention but for later improvements, and he continues as follows: "If then it shall appear that I am the original inventor of all the leading and important principles of the invention, is it wrong that I should ask for reciprocal benefits for myself, who alone have brought them into being? Mr. Hussey's prior patent stood in Mr. McCormick's way, but its inventor raised no voice against the extension of McCormick's rights unless his prior rights became endangered. The honors due Mr. Hussey were not lessened by the Commissioner of Patents when treating of a competitive claimant to have invented the reaper.

[Sidenote: Not McCormick's Inventions]

Mr. McCormick took out a third patent in 1847 covering inventions shown by the statement of Leander and others to have been the invention of the _father_ or _some one else_. An application was made for the extension of this patent. It then became necessary that the applicant show that he had not reaped the benefits he believed himself entitled to through his monopoly for the term of the patent.

[Sidenote: Neither Brilliant nor Extraordinary]

The value of the second patent that of 1845, may be gathered from the words of the Commissioner of Patents: "The invention of 1845, considered in itself, and examined in presence of the reaping machine as then in successful operation, both in Europe and America, can scarcely be regarded as brilliant or in any degree extraordinary."

The Commissioner further said:

[Sidenote: An Efficient Machine]

"It was a conviction of the inefficiency of the machine that led the applicant to make his invention of 1847, which, by a modification of pre-existing elements, provided an advantageous location for the raker's seat. Upon this his fame as an inventor rests, and to this is his reaper indebted for the triumphs it has achieved. This seat had been previously known in at least nine patented reapers; but it had not been well placed, and an appropriate location for it was, up to 1847, an acknowledged desideratum. Whatever, however, may have been the value or the success of the reaper as improved in 1847, such value or success can exert no influence in determining the issue under discussion."

The Commissioner further said, referring to the 1847 patent:

[Sidenote: McCormick's "Invention" Valueless]

"Without the parts thus slowly accumulated and combined, and which have been so unhesitatingly appropriated by himself, _his own invention would have been as valueless as would be a shingle to him who could find no house-top on which to nail it_. The construction insisted on would compel the public to pay again, and pay extravagantly, for that which is already its own, alike by purchase and by long uninterrupted possession."

The authorities cited make it clear the Hussey reaper was successful, from the start, but _the Patent Office did not seem to think that the machine of his opponent for honors was so_.

The Commissioner in his decision refers to the testimony of William S. McCormick, who, at that time, was a partner of Cyrus McCormick as a manufacturer and seller of the McCormick reaper:

[Sidenote: A Worthless Machine]

"As a farmer I used the reaper without a seat, before a good one was invented, and am perfectly certain that it was so nearly worthless that a machine without one could not be sold at any price that would pay in competition with one having a raker's seat; this is my experience from my intimate connection with the business for many years." (Commissioner's Decision, January 28, 1859.)

I further find:

"In the criticism which has been necessarily made upon the invention of 1845, there has been no design to detract from the acknowledged value and usefulness of the machine, as constructed under the patent of 1847. It has had its brilliant successes in England and France, but it has also had its marked discomfitures when competing with other machines. Though enjoying a great and perhaps a still expanding popularity, it is by no means a universal favorite."

The last words of the Commissioner are: "The application must therefore be rejected."

There were no questions raised as to the invention of Mr. Hussey.

[Sidenote: McCormick Had to Pay for Hussey Improvements]

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Did Not Need the Improvements of Others]

The statement that McCormick's success was founded upon the inventions of others and to no extent upon his own, as quoted from "Memorial of Robert McCormick," is in part admitted by Cyrus McCormick, who, in his affidavit when applying for the extension of his 1847 patent said: "He has, at the expense of much thought, time, and money, added many other important improvements to it since 1847, which have contributed to the profits of his manufacture." He then refers to other improvements, saying: Among such improvements by others as he has had to pay for, are the inventions of his brothers, of Obed Hussey, of Jonathan Reed, of Henry Green, of Solymon Bell and of Joseph Nesen. It is known that for nearly thirty years Obed Hussey manufactured and sold reaping machines and mowers in his limited way and, _infringing no rights of others, had no royalties to pay_. To such an extent was his mind that of an inventor, that he devoted thought to many side lines, the expense of which taxed his abilities until, when his patent of 1847 had but two years to run, he sold it for $200,000.00.

COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

In the matter of this application of Eunice B. Hussey, Administratrix of Obed Hussey, deceased, for the extension of Reissued Letters Patent No. 449 for an improvement in Reaping Machines, dated the 14th day of April, 1857, being a division and re-issue of original Letters Patent No. 5227, dated the 7th day of August, 1847, for an improvement in Reaping machines.

[Sidenote: Applications of Mr. Hussey's Widow for Patent Extension all Granted]

Also, the application of the same party for the extension of the Reissued Letters Patent No. 451, for an improvement in Reaping Machines, dated the 14th day of April 1851, being a division and Reissue of Original Letters Patent No. 5227, dated the 7th day of August, 1847, for an improvement in Reaping Machines.

Also, the application of the same party for the extension of Reissued Letters Patent No. 742, for an improvement in Reaping Machines, dated the 21st day of June, 1859, being a division of Reissued Letters Patent No. 450, dated the 14th of April, 1857, being a division and Reissue of original Letters Patent No. 5227, dated the 7th day of August, 1847, for an improvement in Reaping Machines.

Also the application of the same party for the extension of Reissued Letters Patent No. 917, dated the 28th day of February, 1860, for an improvement in Reaping Machines, being a reissue of reissued Letters Patent No. 743, dated June 21, 1859, the last named Patent being a division and reissue of reissued Letters Patent No. 450, dated the 14th day of April, 1857, which last mentioned patent was a division and reissue of original Letters Patent No. 5227, dated the 7th of August, 1847, for an Improvement in Reaping Machines.

[Sidenote: Claim of Opponents Overruled]

These four applications for the extension of the said four patents, Nos. 449, 451, 742 and 917, having been made in due form on the 30th day of November, 1860, and the Commissioner of Patents having caused to be published in due and legal form, notice of said applications and of the time and place when and where the same would be considered. And the applicant, the administratrix and widow of the patentee, having duly furnished and filed statements in writing under oath of the ascertained value of the said inventions and improvements claimed in said patents, and of the receipts and expenditures of the patentee and his legal representatives sufficiently in detail to exhibit a true and faithful account of loss and profit in any manner accruing to the patentee and his legal representatives from and by reason of said inventions and patents. And the testimony in these four cases having been duly filed and considered and referred to the principal Examiner having charge of the class of inventions to which these belong, and the said Examiner having made a full report upon the said cases, and particularly that the inventions or improvements, secured by the said four patents, were new and patentable when patented. And the printed arguments in these cases having been duly filed and considered, and the day of hearing viz. the 28th day of Feb., 1861, arrived, undersigned, the Acting Commissioner of Patents, sitting at the time and place designated in the said published notice to hear and decide upon the evidence produced before him both for and against the extension, and having heard all persons who appeared to show cause why the extension should not be granted, does decide as follows, _viz._:

That the applications for extension in these cases were made at a proper time, and not prematurely as the opponents have contended. The only ground alleged to support the allegation that the applications were premature is that the receipts for the year 1861 cannot be fully ascertained at this time, but must be estimated or guessed at. If this is a good reason for not considering the applications now it would also be good on the 7th of August when the patent expires, for the receipts would not then be ascertained, but would still be the subject of estimate only. These receipts can be as well determined by this mode now, as in August. The objection on this point is not therefore well taken, and must be overruled. An application for extension cannot be regarded as premature if made during the last year of the term of the patent, and the total receipts are known or can be estimated with reasonable certainty. In addition to this there seems to be no little force in the argument of Counsel that the public convenience would be promoted by an early decision upon these cases before manufacturers enter upon their preparations for another year's business.

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Opponents Contentions Not Proven by Facts]

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

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

[Sidenote: Utility of Hussey's Inventions]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: An Inadequate Profit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The receipts on the same account are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES

And an Examination of the Claims for Priority of Invention

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

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

[Sidenote: Attempts of the Ancients]