Chapter III: Part 3

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.

[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.

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.