s 
 
 .S77 i 
 
 la^Y 
 
 a.,u 
 
*; 
 
^^CU^-^Yn 
 
OVERLOOKED PAGES 
 
 or 
 
 REAPER HISTORY 
 
 Chicago, Illinois, 1897 
 
 ll vl > -^^ ( -• ,1 ,1 ii 
 
 REAPING MACHINE 
 
 m _b 
 
 
 I. M^ 
 
 I "% 
 
 1 
 
 l\ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 CHIS book is a republication of three pamphlets, printed as 
 their respective title pages show. While the name of the 
 writer is not given therein, it is known that they were from the 
 pen of Edward Stabler, of Sandy Springs, Md., Postmaster of 
 that place from Jackson's time until his death, a few years 
 since. They were given by Mr. Stabler to one of his particular 
 friends, Mr. R. D. 0. Smith, then and now a prominent patent 
 lawyer. Mr. Stabler, he informs us, was a man of great skill 
 as a mechanic, and was particularly noted for his ability as a 
 die sinker— long considered to be the best in the United States. 
 He made many government seals. The seal of the Smithsonian 
 Institution is exceptionally fine. He was also a famous rifle 
 shot, but wasted no powder on small game; buffalo and bear 
 hunting being his recreation until the time of his death, which 
 occurred about ten years ago. That he was a man of ability 
 is shown by the review which follows. 
 
 This republication is undertaken in order to preserve the 
 historical facts contained (with which we have long been 
 familiar ) as the single copy of each, now before us, is thought 
 
 to be the only one in existence. 
 
 J. Russell Parsons. 
 
 Lewis Miller. 
 
 John F. Steward. 
 
 Chicago, Illinois, February, 1897. 
 
A BRIEF NARRATIVE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 INVENTION 
 
 OF 
 
 Reaping Machines; 
 
 AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE 
 
 CLAIMS FOR PRIORITY OF INVENTION: 
 
 BY A MARYLAND FARMER AND MACHINIST. 
 
 ALSO A SHORT APPENDIX, 
 
 CONSISTING OF 
 
 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS, 
 
 AS TO THE 
 
 Operation and Success of Reaping Machines 
 
 IN THE YEARS 1851, 1852 and 1853. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 FROM THE PRESS OF MILLS & COX, 
 
 (OFFICE OF THE "AMERICAN FARMER,") 
 
 No. 128 Baltimore Street. 
 
 1854:. 
 
 Reprinted by the. W. B. CONKEY COMPANY 
 1897. 
 
6irr 
 
 MRS. WOODROW WILSOH 
 NOV. 25, 1939 
 
 '577 
 
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 relia- 
 ble evidence within reach will establish the fact — and before the evidence 
 maybe lost — to whom belongs the credit of first rendering the Reap- 
 ing and Mowing Machine a practical and available implement to the 
 Ameiican farmer; not who theoretically i)iveiited a machine for the pur- 
 pose, 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 crea- 
 tion 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 aiid 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. 
 
 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 con- 
 sidered 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 3 
 
4 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 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 con- 
 fidence 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. 
 
 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," &c., &c. — 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 y^^r/'. 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' Dic- 
 tionary; and he winds up the account as follows: "But the success 
 with which they have been attended, has hitherto been far from com- 
 plete;" 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 xvhat is wa?}icd, but fails entirely 
 to inform his readers hozv 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, 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 
 
 fell into disuse. Another has been lately devised in one of our Colo- 
 nies, which cuts off the heads of the corn, but leaves the straw stand- 
 ing, 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 see- 
 ing 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 perse- 
 verance, &c." 
 
 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 Man- 
 chester railway. We shall again recur to English authority. John Bull 
 is a right lionest 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! 
 
 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 endeavor- 
 ing 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, &c., &c. — 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, revolv- 
 ing cutters, or shears instead. Several trials were made with Bell's in 
 1828 or i82g; 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 
 every where 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. 
 
 A reel was used to gather the grain to the shears, and adjustable, 
 
6 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 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 i8oo to 1833 out of 
 some 1 5 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 Pat- 
 ent Ofifice in 1836. Many, if not most of them, were probably improve- 
 ments 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 Con- 
 gress 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 Kyck 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. 
 
 Wm; 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. 
 
 W' m. & Thos. Schnebly of Maryland, also used the reel, with shears 
 as cutters, very similar to Bell's. 
 
 Abr'm Randall or Rundell, of N. Y. (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 N. Y. 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. 
 
 None of these machines however, Hussey's excepted, were success- 
 ful, 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 — mak- 
 ing 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 scis- 
 sor 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 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 
 
 brief period and with keen edges; but as they become dull, the shears 
 are forced apart by the straw and grass — particular 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 pointof 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,(i854) the Mark 
 Lane Express acknowledges that at the Royal Agricultural Societies' 
 show at Lincoln, Bell's machine was "at last fairly beaten" by Hus- 
 sey'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 cum- 
 bersome as it was, it combined more of the essential features of success, 
 than an}' 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 patron- 
 age, 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 183 1 ; for although 
 C. H. McCormick's first patent was dated in 1834, yet when he applied 
 for his extension in 1848, he alleged that hisifwc7itio?i\va.s prior to Hus- 
 sey'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 {zvritte?i ^.nd 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 dep- 
 ositions were taken. 
 
 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 con- 
 sidered 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. 
 
8 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 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, ) 
 
 "Sir: Jan. 22d, 1848. \ 
 
 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 opera- 
 tion 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 mat- 
 ter 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 rec- 
 ognized 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. 
 
 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 byC.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. 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING J.EVCHINES. 9 
 
 Mary McCormick. — mother of C. H. McCormick; agreed in gen- 
 eral with the testimony of her sons, — did not doubt but it was correct, 
 " it appears familiar to me," but testified to nothing in particular. 
 
 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 183 1. 
 
 John McCown — was a black-smith — 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 ivood or iro7i, 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 g 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 znd gentlemen," testify 
 that the machine ever worked a single hour, or cut as much grain of 
 any kind as would make a single sheaf !* 
 
 In a long communication to Com'r. 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, eleve?i years after the alleged invention, he had sold but two 
 machines, and one of them conditionally. Again, in the same paper he 
 states, " but the}' failed to operate well," and had to be altered: — in 
 other words they would not work at all. Amongst others, he had 
 
 * The readinpf of this testimony strongly reminds us of an anecdote related at 
 the hustings in Va. by that talented but eccentric character, John Randolph, of Roa- 
 noake, 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 h s overseers, a plaus- 
 ible 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 jus- 
 tify. "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 evi- 
 dence 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. McCor- 
 mick, this is very good tally John, but where's the Corn? The evidence that the 
 machine ever cut a single acre of grain. 
 
10 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 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 surprized at this; for some 35 years ago we were per- 
 sonally acquainted with this " farmer «of Virginia," and also with his 
 mode of farming; and know that a machine of any kind to please him 
 ?n7ist zuork 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 agreea- 
 bly to adjournment — Present James Buchanan, Sec'y of State, Edmund 
 Burke, Commissioner of Patents, and R. H. Gillet, 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, Sec'y State. 
 Edmund Burke, Commiss'r. Pat's. 
 R. H. GiLLETT, Solicitor Treas'y. 
 
 This evidence, taken in due form, and certified to by the magis- 
 trates in Augusta and Rockbridge Counties, Va., was 7iot 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 inven- 
 tion; — and in connexion with Dr. Page's report, conclusive, "that said 
 patent ought not to be extended." 
 
 VVe have also seen it stated that Hussey appeared before the Board 
 of Extensions " to contest the extension of McCormick's patent." 
 
 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 com- 
 pelled me to act in self defense." 
 
 Not so with C. H. McCormick; for when his claims were rejected 
 by the Board of Extensions, — and most justly, as we think, in accord- 
 ance with the evidence — he petitioned Congress against Htisseys 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 183 1 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. 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 11 
 
 On page 231 of the Reports of Juries for the Great London Exhibi- 
 tion, 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 \' ir- 
 ginia, United States. He made an experiment in cutting grain in the 
 year 1816, bya 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, sup- 
 ported by stationary fingers over the edge, and a reel to gather the 
 corn; which last, however, I found had been used belore, 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 ofic?i advised by )ny father a?id family to 
 abandon it, and pursue my regular business, as likely to be more profitable, lie 
 havi7\g give7i 7ne 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 pat- 
 ent 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, &c. — 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."* 
 
 It would be just as conclusive and reasonable for iho. father of C. H. 
 McCormick to claim at this day priority of invention for his Reaper 
 invented in 1S16, "by a number of cylinders standing perpendicularly;" 
 
 *"The sale has since steadily ir.creased, and is now more than a thousand 
 yearly." This was written in 185.1, and by a little calculation, we can readily esti- 
 mate 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 ^86 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 2l pate7it fee of $80 on each machine, then t/vee-fozirths 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 an<J 
 bad debts in addition. 
 
12 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 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 particu- 
 lar 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 tvas oftcji advised by 7ny fatJier and family to 
 abandoji it, a?id 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 sec- 
 ond patent in 1845." What these improvements were we are also in- 
 formed: "These improvements consist in reversing the angle of the 
 sickle teeth alternately, the improved form of the fingers to hold up 
 the corn, &c. — an iron case to preserve the sickle from clogging, &c. — 
 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, in- 
 vented and long in successful operation by others, the machine would 
 not work, and consequently no one would buy. 
 
 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 pc7i 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 \\\e 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 eiit it off. 
 
 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 " PLliza H. Steele, of Steele's Tavern, Va." 
 — 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 
 |L 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 oper- 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 13 
 
 ation 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 
 .•^ons, 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 ac- 
 count 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 unnec- 
 essary, — an actual incumbrance with his cutting apparatus, and soon 
 laid it aside. 
 
 We will now examine another invention patented by C. H. McCor- 
 mick, in 1847. ^s \\cvQ 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 hy the side of his machine, while Hussey's raker rode on 
 the machine as they ahvays had dojie 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 scat! this 
 zvas a " novelty " and well worth a patent! 
 
 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 Rich- 
 mond, McCormick's raker zvalked 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. Wm. 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 oi the committee who made the report 
 last summer at Hutchinsoris, which was published a few days there- 
 after, 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 objec- 
 tion 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 Sen- 
 ator Roane's letter and also furnish other testimony on the subject. 
 
14 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 To the Editor of the Amcricayi Farmer. 
 
 As the question of zvhich 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 wnth great interest by farmers; such was the partial charac- 
 ter 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 ap- 
 pear strange that the public should be in some degree misled with 
 regard to the relative merits of the two machines. If my own inter- 
 est was alone concerned, I would not thus far trespass on your col- 
 umns, 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, 
 
 Baltimore, January i8th, 1844. 
 To the Hon. \Vm. 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 my- 
 self, ow'ing to the difficulties which prevented me from gettmg my 
 best machine to the field on that day, and other impediments inci- 
 dental to a stranger unprovided with a team, &c., 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 har- 
 vest 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 aban- 
 doned the field in Virginia by my non-appearance there in the next 
 harvest. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, &c., Obed Hussey. 
 
 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 C 
 
 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 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 15 
 
 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 ensu- 
 ing harvest, that it is your purpose to publish this statement. Averse 
 as 1 am to having my name in print on tins, 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 Hutchin- 
 son's — I was surprised and delighted with the performance of each of 
 them, and fully resolved to own one of them by the wr,r/ 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 07i the zvhole Mr. McCormick's was prefer- 
 able, 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 zvcak 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 e7igageme7it for the day, with a small and inferior 
 machine, drawn by an indifferent and untutored team. Mr. Hutchin- 
 son'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 re- 
 moved, and my mind convinced that for the heavy wheat we raise on 
 our river low grounds, rich bottoms, &c., yo74r machine is superior to 
 Mr. McCormick's, of which I still thiyik 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 potver for the process 
 
 Most respectfully, yours, &c., W. H. Roane. 
 
 Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore. 
 
 We are not advised at what precise period subsequent to 1843 ^"^i 
 previous to 1847, (when C. H. McCormick patented the raker's seat) 
 that he changed the arrangement of his wheels, &c., so as to admit a 
 seat for his raker without "tipping up the machine" as was unavoida- 
 ble 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 
 
16 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 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, (itali- 
 cised by the writer:) 
 
 "In 1842 my father, by my request purchased for me of C. H. 
 McCormick and Father, a reaper at ^i 10, which was drawn by two 
 horses, and it was raked off to the right hand side by a 7nan on foot. 
 The father of C. H McCormick stated to me at the commencement 
 of that harvest, that it had been nine years since tJiey 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. McCor- 
 mick had been improving, cha?tgi?ig ox i?n'enting vsly'ious parts until they 
 had (as they thought) perfected the machine. * * * I disliked the 
 labor imposed on the hand zvJio had to walk attd 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, butthata self-operating appendage could be constructed 
 to remove the grain, but that would be uncertain, and entirely unrelia- 
 ble. 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 35^ 
 feet, constructed on two wheels, ^nd connected underneath the plat- 
 form, 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 theie 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 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 17 
 
 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.) 
 
 The working of the first carriage was witnessed by many gentle-' 
 men 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 xn^ a letter, stating lie had changed tlie construction of Ids 
 machine, and had it so constructed that the raker could ride on the machine 
 and remove t/ie. 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 evi- 
 dence than the above — C. H. McCormick himself. 
 
 His Patent of 1847, covering some four or five folio pages, is alto- 
 gether 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: 
 
 "And the gearino- which communicates motion to the crank is placed back of 
 the driving wheel, which is therefore subject to be clogged by sand, dirt, straw, &c. 
 — and in cottseqi/ence of the relative position of the various parts, the attendant is 
 obliged to walk on the ground by the side of the viachine, 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 Ma- 
 chines, I have remedied by my improvements, the nature of which consists in plac- 
 ing 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, &c. and also bringing the driving wheel 
 sufficiently far back to balance the frame of the machine 7vith the raker on it, to make 
 room for him to sit or stand on the frame," &c. &ic.--"'whi':h canjtot be done, if the 
 raker walks by the side of the machine, as heretofore." 
 
 Now if C. H. McCormick's testimony in his own favor, can be con- 
 sidered reliable, he certainly had not zV/t'^///^^/ a seat for his raker as 
 late as 1845 — and not long prior to 1847, when he patented it; and 
 ]ws\. fourteen years after Hussey had used it every year, successively. 
 The raker's seat therefore was just as original ■d,Vi invention as the reel. 
 2 
 
18 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 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, &c. &c., 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 N. Western 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, &c. 
 
 There is one other important feature, patented in 1845 ^"^ 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. Threshing machines were 
 then being introduced into that section, and were attracting much 
 notice. Overhearing the conversation of an individual interested in 
 such implements, he asked the question if there were no machines to 
 reap the grain? The reply was no; " and whoever will invent one will 
 make a fortune." 
 
 Without any knowledge, as we believe, of what had been done by 
 others, — and certainly his occupations had not been such as to make 
 him familiar with the subject by reading, or otherwise — it claimed the 
 attention of his leisure hours so far as to make a model. This satisfied 
 him that the thing was practicable, and he undertook an operating 
 machine, which although lightly made, was sufficient fully to test the 
 principle. 
 
 This 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 open- 
 ings at the back end of the slot in the guards for the escape of parti- 
 cles 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 per- 
 sonal 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. 
 
 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 in- 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 19 
 
 venter, 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 appar- 
 ent until then, it failed to work satisfactorily. One burley fellow 
 present picked up a cradle, and swinging it with an air of great exul- 
 tation, 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. 
 
 Cincinnati, November 20th, 1833. 
 
 This may certify, that I was present on the 2nd day of July near 
 Carthage in this county, at an experiment trial with a machine in- 
 vented by Mr. Obed Hussey for cutting grain, The operation was 
 performed on a field of wheat. The machine was found to cut the 
 w^heat clean, and with great rapidity. But owing to. its having been 
 imperfectly made, being only constructed for the experiment, some 
 parts of 7<;y7^^ which should have been made of iron, and in conse- 
 quence 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 facili- 
 tate 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. 
 
 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 expectation. Cutting the grain clean and rapidly, and 
 leaving it in good order for binding. We are of the opinion that the 
 machine is capable of being propelled at the rate of five miles the 
 hour, and do good work. The machine was worked when the cutters 
 were both in a sharp, and a dull condition, and no difference could be 
 perceived in its execution. 
 
 ( Signed. ) 
 G. A. Mavhew, Jacob White, S. W. Folger, 
 
 T. R. Seb'ring, H. B. Coffin, T. B. Coffin, 
 
 A. Castner, C. F. Coffin, Wm. Paddock. 
 
20 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 There are several other certificates equally conclusive and satis- 
 factory; but we will only copy in addition to the foregoing, a short 
 piece from the " Farmer and Mechanic," issued July 3d, 1833, i" Cin- 
 cinnati, as follows: 
 
 "Several members of the Agricultural Society on last Wednesday, attended in 
 Carthage to see a machine for cutting wheat by horse power, in operation. It was 
 propelled by two horses, and cut as fast as eight persons could conveniently bind, 
 doing the cutting neatly. 
 
 This machine is the invention of Mr. O. Hussey, and will no doubt prove a 
 useful addition to our agricultural implements. Mr. J. C. Ludlow suggested that it 
 would be good economy of time and labor, to take a threshing machine into the 
 field, and thresh out the grain as it is reaped, thereby saving the binding and hauling 
 to the barn or stack. We think the suggestion a good one." 
 
 Here then, was the problem solved — the great discovery made, 
 that had puzzled the brains of hundreds if not of thousands, and for 
 centuries. No one we fearlessly assert had ever succeeded so com- 
 pletely and satisfactorily, and with so simple and practical a machine. 
 
 Some visited the exhibition determined to condemn as they after- 
 wards acknowledged, deeming the thing impracticable; but all were 
 convinced; for the demonstration was of that character which left 
 no room for doubt or cavil on the minds of any. 
 
 It was indeed a triumph, — not perhaps entirely unexpected to the 
 inventor — but neither he, or any one else at that early day, could 
 foresee the wonderful changes ultimately to be effected, and the world 
 wide renown to be conferred on the inventor as the result of this 
 experiment; one that was certain to immortalize his name as a pioneer 
 and benefactor in the most useful and peaceful pursuits in life. It was 
 too, the dawn of a brighter day to the toiling husbandman, by lighten- 
 ing his labours, and adding to his comfort and independence; only 
 circumscribed in its beneficial influence by the bounds of civilization. 
 
 Some may possibly suppose that we view the invention in too 
 glowing colours; but we have yet to meet with the farmer who owned 
 a good reaping and mowing machine, that would dispense with its 
 advantages for twice the cost of the implement, and again be com- 
 pelled to resort to the sickle, the cradle, and the scythe; for of a truth 
 it completely supersedes all three in competent hands and with fair 
 usage, in both the grain and grass crops. 
 
 It is difficult to confine our narrative to its intended brief limits 
 and select from the mass of evidence on hand, as to the uninterrupted 
 success of Hussey's invaluable invention from that day to the present — 
 now twenty one years. We will therefore only select a single and short 
 account of each year; until about 1840 or '42; not long after which 
 a few other inventors came before the public. There was however 
 no competitor in the field from 1833, to 1841, or 1842, either in Europe 
 or America, so far as we can ascertain, that did more than make a few 
 occasional trials; none attracted public attention, or were successful 
 and efficient machines even in the estimation of the projectors them- 
 selves. The evidence proves it, and it is corroborated by our own 
 personal knowledge, having been constantly engaged in Agricultural 
 and Mechanical pursuits for more than thirty years — and as we believe, 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 21 
 
 familiar with most of the important improvements of the age; — 
 of all in fact, directly connected with agriculture in its labour saving 
 implements, of any notoriety. 
 
 Many alleged improvements have been made in the Reaper in the 
 past 10 or 12 years; and many more still, within half that period. 
 How far they are nezv inventions, and actual improv erne tits, we can 
 better judge by examining Hussey's patent; for it describes the cutting 
 apparatus clearly and minutely, and which in fact is the whole thing, — 
 the " one thing needful " to success. For the use of wheels, or a system 
 of gearing to all kinds of motive machinery is coeval with the first 
 dawn of mechanical science. How ancient we know not, for the 
 Prophets of old spoke of " wheels within wheels " near three thousand 
 years ago; and it is very certain the hand of man, unaided by wheels 
 and machinery, never erected the vast Pyramids and other structures 
 of antiquity. We do not believe there is a single Reaping and Mowing 
 machine in successful operation on this continent that is not mainly 
 indebted to Hussey's invention in the cutting apparatus, for its success: 
 deprive them of this essential feature — disrobe them of their borrowed 
 plumes, and their success would be like the flight of the eagle, suddenly 
 bereft of his pinions, — he must fall; and the machines would stand 
 still, for not a* farmer in the land would use them. 
 
 As previously remarked, O. Hussey's first patent is dated in 1833. 
 We omit the more general description of the machine, and copy only 
 what embraces the most important features, the guards and knives: 
 also an extract from his improvement patented in 1847, to obviate 
 choking in the guards: 
 
 "On the front edge of the platform is fixed the cutting or reaping apparatus, 
 which is constructed in the following manner: — A series of iron spikes, and which 
 I will Q.2W guards, are fixed permanently to the platform, and extend seven or eight 
 inches, more or less, beyond the edge of the platform, parallel to each other, 
 horizontal, and pointing forward. — These guards are about three inches apart, 
 of a suitable size, say three-quarters of an inch square, more or less, at the base, 
 and lessening towards the point. The guards are formed of a top and bottom piece, 
 joined at the point and near the back, being nearly parallel, and about one-eighth 
 of an inch apart, forming a horizontal mortice or slit through the guard; these 
 mortices being on a line with each other, form a continued range of openings 
 or slits through the guards. The first guard is placed on the rear of the right 
 wheel, and the last at the extreme end of the platform, and the intermediate guards 
 at equal distances from each other, and three inches apart, more or less, from center 
 to center. 
 
 The cutter or saw, f, is formed of thin triangular plates of steel fastened 
 to a straight flat rod, g. of steel, iron or wood, one-inch and a-half wide; these 
 steel plates are arranged side by side, forming a kind of saw with teeth three inches 
 at the base, and four and a half inches long, more or less, sharp on both sides, 
 and terminating nearly in a point. The saw is then passed through all the guards 
 in the aforesaid range of mortices, the size of the mortice being suited to receive 
 the saw with the teeth pointing forward; observing always that the points of the 
 saw teeth should correspond with the center of the guards. One end of the saw 
 is connected with a pitman moved by a crank, and receiving its motion from the 
 main axis, by one or two sets of cog wheels. The vibration of this crank must 
 be equal to the distances of the centers of the guards, or the points of the saw teeth, 
 or thereabouts, so when the machine is in motion, the point of each saw tooth may 
 pass from center to center of the guards on each side of tlie same tooth at every 
 vibration of the crank; if the main wheels are three feet four inches in diameter. 
 
22 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 they should in one revolution give the crank sixteen vibrations, more or less; 
 the saw teeth should play clear of the guards, both above and below. * * * 
 
 Operation. — The power is given by locking the wheels to the main axis, 
 the machine has one square wheel box, the other round and locked at pleasure. 
 If the power should be wanted, one, two, or more horses are attached and driven 
 on the stubble before the machine, the right wheel running near the standing grain, 
 the platform with the saw in its front edge extends on the right, at right angles 
 with the direction of the horses, with the guards and saw teeth presented to the 
 standing grain — when the machine moves forward, the saw moves with the teeth 
 endwise and horizontal, the grain or grass is brought between the guards, the saw 
 teeth in passing through the guards, cut the stalk while held both above and below 
 the saw — the butts of the grain receive an impulse forward by the motion of the 
 machine while in the act of being cut, which causes the heads of the grain to fall 
 directly backwards on the platform — in this manner the platform receives the grain 
 until a sufficient quantity is collected to make one or more bundles, according to the 
 pleasure of the operator, then it^is deposited with a proper instrument by the oper- 
 ator, WHO MAY RIDE ON THE MACHINE." 
 
 Here follows the dimensions of a machine suited to two horses, 
 which is only copied so far as refers to the cutting apparatus, viz: 
 "the back of the saw may be from one inch to i^ inches wide, and 
 from three sixteenths to one quarter of an inch thick; and the steel 
 plates for the teeth should be about one-tenth of an inch thick; one 
 end of the mortice in the guard should be fitted to receive the back 
 of the saw, so that the bearing may be on the back of the saw only." 
 
 "In this machine the following points are claimed as new and original: — 
 . 1st. — The straight horizontal saw, with the teeth sharp on their two sides for cutting 
 grain. 2d. — The guards forming double bearers above and below the saw, whereby 
 the cutting is made sure, whether with a sharp or dull edge, the guards at the same 
 time protecting the saw from rocks or stones, or other large substances it may meet 
 with. 3d. — The peculiar construction that the saw teeth may run free, whereby 
 the necessary pressure and consequent friction of two correspondmg edges cutting 
 together, as on the principle of scissors, is entirely avoided. 4th, — The peculiar 
 arrangement by which the horses are made to go before the machine, being more 
 natural, and greatly facilitating the use of the machine, and the general arrange- 
 ment of the points as above described. 
 
 In cutting grass, the platform is reduced in width, and the grass falls on the 
 ground as it is cut.'' 
 
 In the improvement of the guards patented in 1847, the claim 
 states, " I accordingly claim the opening above the blades A, fig. 3, 
 and at D. fig i, in cornbination with vibrating blades. I also claim 
 the particular- application of the flush edge at the fork of the blades, 
 for the purpose described. j' 
 
 The end and design of the improvements above claimed, is to pre- 
 vent the blades choking." 
 
 E7i passa?tt, we would ask any intelligent and candid farmer 
 or mechanic who has examined a successful reaper, to compare the 
 foregoing plain specifications which all can understand, with the 
 cutting apparatus of the most successful modern machine. And 
 we would especially desire him to compare them in principle with^ 
 the "improved form of fingers to hold up the corn, and an iron case 
 to preserve the sickles from clogging;" not the alleged invention 
 of 1831, by C. H. McCormick, and abandoned from 1840 to 1843, 
 but the claims patented by him in 1845, [as stated in the letter 
 to Philip Pusey, M. P.] twelve years after the date of Hussey's patent, 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 23 
 
 and twelve years after his most complete and uninterrupted success 
 in cutting both grain and grass. In fact there was no year from, and 
 including 1833, up to 1854, a period of 21 years the past harvest, 
 that we have not the most positive and conclusive evidence of the 
 success of Hussey's reaper; in numerous cases the same machines had 
 cut from 500 to 800, and even one thousand acres; in one instance, 
 the same machine was used for fourteen harvests, or as many years, 
 successiv^ely and successfully. 
 
 We have given some of the evidence for 1833. For 1834 we annex 
 two letters giving an account of the two machines made this year, 
 one in Illinois, and the other in New York, viz: 
 
 Spring Creek, Sangamon Co., III., 
 Oct. 1st, 1854. 
 Mr. Obed Husscy, Balti?nore. 
 
 Dear Sir: — Your favor of August loth came to hand a few days 
 since. The reason was, it lay at Berlin (formerly Island Grove Post- 
 office) and my Post-office address is Springfield, the only place where 
 I call for letters. 
 
 In answer to your query, how your Reaping Machine worked 
 in 1834, I have to say that it cut about sixteen acres of wheat for 
 me on my farm; that it did the work in first rate style; according 
 to my best recollection, as well as any of the machines that have 
 since been introduced. The only objection I recollect being made, 
 was, that when the straw was wet, or there was much green grass 
 among the wheat, the blades would choke. You certainly demon- 
 strated in 1834 the practicability of cutting grain or grass with horse 
 power; and all the machines since introduced, seem to have copied 
 your machine in all its essential features. 
 
 I am respectfully yours, 
 
 John E. Canfield. 
 
 The next letter, we copy from the Genessee Farmer of Decem- 
 ber 6th, 1834. • The reader will readily perceive that the author, 
 Wm. C. Dwight, knew how to handle the pen as well as the plow, 
 and equally well to work the reaper, being a practical farmer. 
 But we are pained to add that he lost his life by the fatal railroad 
 accident at Norwalk, Ct. about a year since. 
 
 From the Genessee Farmer, Dec. 6, 1834. 
 To the Editor of the Ge?iessce Farmer: 
 
 I wrote you last May that Mr. Hussey, the inventor of a machine 
 for harvesting wheat, had left in this village one of his machines for 
 the purpose of giving our farmers an opportunity to test its value, 
 and I promised to write you further about it when it had been put 
 to use. For many reasons which will not interest either yourself or the 
 public, the matter has been delayed till the first rainy day, after my 
 fall work was out of the way, should give leisure to remember and 
 fulfil my promise. 
 
24 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 The machine has been fully tried, and I am gratified to be able 
 to say, that it has fully succeeded; hundreds of farmers from the 
 different towns of this and the adjoining counties, have witnessed 
 its operations, and all have not only expressed their confidence in its 
 success, but their gratification in the perfection of the work. 
 
 As every inquirer asks the same series of questions, I presume 
 your readers will have a like course of thought, and wish for satisfac- 
 tion in the same particulars. To give them this, I will write them 
 in their order, and give the answers: 
 
 Does the machine make clean work? 
 
 It saves all the grain. To use the language of a gratified looker-on, 
 an old and, experienced farmer, " it cheats the hogs."* 
 
 Does the machine expedite the work? 
 
 What the machine is capable of accomplishing, we who have used 
 it can hardly say, as we had no field in fit order, large enough for 
 a fair trial thro' a whole day; and can only say what it has done. 
 Five acres of heavy wheat, on the Genessee flats, were harvested 
 in two hours and a quarter. 
 
 In what condition is the wheat left, and how is the work done 
 where the wheat is lodged? 
 
 The machine leaves the wheat in gavels large enough for a sheaf, 
 and where grain stands well enough to make fair work with the cradle, 
 it leaves the straw in as good condition to bind as the gavels of a good 
 reaper. Whether the grain stands or is lodged is of little consequence, 
 except as to the appearance of the sheaf, and the necessity of saving 
 more straw, when lodged, than is desirable. The condition of the 
 sheaf when the grain is lodged depends much upon the adroitness 
 of the raker. 
 
 What number of hands, and what strength of team is necessary 
 to manage the machine advantageously? 
 
 Two men, one to drive the team and the other to rake off the 
 wheat, and two horses, work the machine; but when the grain is heavy, 
 or the land mellow, a change of horses is necessary, as the gait of the 
 horses is too rapid to admit of heavy draft The horses go at the rate 
 of four to five miles an hour, and when the growth of straw is not 
 heavy a fair trot of the team is not too much. 
 
 Is the machine liable to derangement and destruction from its 
 own motion? 
 
 This is a question which cannot be so directly answered as the 
 others. We have only used the machine to cut about fifty acres, 
 and have had no trouble; judging from appearances so far, should 
 say it was as little subject to this evil as any machinery whatever. 
 The wear upon the cutting part being so little as to require not more 
 than fifteen minutes sharpening in a day; there is no loss of time 
 on this score. 
 
 Is the sheaf a good one to thresh? 
 
 The man who has fed the threshing machine with the grain 
 of twenty acres cut by this machine, says the sheaves are much 
 
 * The hogs are the gleaners in this section of country. 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 25 
 
 better than those of cradled grain, and quite as good as those 
 of a reaper. 
 
 There is one more advantage beyond ordinary inquiries, of conse- 
 quence, where so much grain is raised as in this valley; be the grain 
 ever so ripe, there is no waste of grain by any agitation of the .<=traw, 
 and all the waste which can take place must arise from the handling 
 and shaking in binding. 
 
 I am yours, &c. 
 
 Wm.C. Dwight. 
 Moscow, Livingston Co. N. Y., Nov. 14, 1834. 
 
 N. B. The machine we used was intended only for upland, but 
 by some little alterations and additions we used it with equal facility 
 on all kinds of soil; and it can be used on any farm so clean from 
 stumps and stones as not to endanger the blocking the wheels. 
 
 The following letter is evidence for 1835, ^"<^ ^^so refers to the 
 originality of the invention by O. Hussey. 
 
 Palmyra, Mo., Au£: 14, 1854. 
 
 Friend Hussey — Yours duly received. As to the machines sent 
 by you (ordered some two years since) they both worked well. 
 
 Before you had invented your machine in 1831 or 1832, your 
 attention was drawn to a mode of cutting grain, hemp, and grass, 
 and you told me you thought you could invent such a machine 
 to be drawn by horses; and after you had returned to Cincinnati 
 from Laurenceburg, you wrote me a letter in '32 or at the furthest 
 in '33 (for I left Indiana 2nd Oct. 1833) with a draft and description 
 of a plan for cutting grain. The draft was thus (here follows a diagram 
 of the cutting apparatus exactly as described by the patent) and the 
 description was, that these knives were to work by the motion of the 
 wheels, being a perfect description of the invented principle. 
 
 As soon as I saw the plan, I was satisfied of its success and wrote 
 to you that there was no doubt of the success of your machine; that 
 it was astonishing the world had so many thousand years been confined 
 to the sickle when so obvious a mode of cutting grain and grass existed; 
 and shortly after you obtained a patent for the machine. 
 
 On the 6th July, 1835, V^^ brought to Palmyra two of your 
 machines, and they were put in operation near this place — one 
 in a meadow between here and Philadelphia, and one in the heavy 
 grass in Marion City bottom.* The machines did cut well. I was 
 the editor of the Missouri Courier, from the month of November, 1833, 
 until 1838, and brought your machine before the public; it excited 
 much attention, and its performance was highly satisfactory. The 
 results of the trials were published in the paper by me in August 
 or. September, 1835. I knew of the capacity of the machine, and that 
 it did so execute in the bottom three acres an hour. In this I cannot 
 be mistaken, for I felt at the time the deepest interest in the success 
 
 * Both of these machines were sold to Wm. Muldrow, Agent, of Marion College, 
 Marion county, Mo. 
 
26 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 of the machine. Mr. McElroy is dead, where you boarded, and also 
 Samuel Muldrow and James Muldrovv. Still I will inquire if any 
 persons can be found who were present. 
 
 I know the results, and recollect distinctly the reception the 
 machines met with, and the prices, to wit: $150 each. Muldrow bought 
 another for ;S500 — which was a whirling wheel. You recollect it: 
 it never run any. Yours, I know it was said then, would cut off brush 
 large enough for a hoop-pole. Court is now in session, but as soon 
 as I can ascertain the witnesses (at the exhibition) I will write you 
 further. But my recollection is distinct, from the relations existing 
 between us, my interest in machinery generally, and my position 
 as editor of the only paper of this section of country. 
 
 As ever, y^our friend, 
 
 Edwin G. Pratt. 
 
 In 1836, O. Hussey visited Maryland at the written solicitation of 
 the Board of Trustees of The Maryland Agricultural Society, for 
 the Eastern Shore. The fame of his reaping exploits in the State of 
 New York, and the far West, had reached the East; though with 
 something like a " snail's pace." We had not then the Magnetic Tele- 
 graph, which with lightning speed enables the East to talk with the 
 West; nor even the " iron horse," by whose speed and power, the 
 reaper that cut a large crop of wheat in Maryland, could within the same 
 week, cut another equally large in the valley of the Mississippi; but it 
 then required some two to \.\\xqq. years to prepare the public mind for 
 the reception of the machine here; and owing to the limited means of 
 the inventor, the transportation from place to place was often done 
 by a single horse; accompanied by the inventor foot-sore and weary 
 from walking hundreds of miles! 
 
 The annexed certificate was given, published, and widely circu- 
 lated after a full trial of the machine, in cutting more than two hun- 
 dred acres, and by large farmers and practical men, known throughout 
 the State. Comment is unnecessary on such a paper; but we feel 
 bound to state that it was mainly owing to the exertions of the liberal 
 public spirited gentlemen, the last, though not the least of the signers, 
 Gen. Tench Tilghman, that the Reaper was then introduced into this 
 State. He was the early and steadfast friend of the Patentee, and to 
 the cause of agricultural improvement in our State. Strange as it may 
 appear to many at the present day, and notwithstanding these demon- 
 strations in Ohio, Illinois, New York, Missouri and Maryland, which 
 did not admit of cavil or doubt as to the entire efficiency and success 
 of Hussey's reaper, scarcely a farmer could be found ready and willing 
 to take hold of it, and aid the Inventor in introducing it into use. But 
 farmers as a class are proverbially cautious, and disinclined to change 
 from established customs and usages; it often requires " line upon 
 line and precept upon precept," aided too, by almost a free gift of the 
 article, to induce them even to give a new agricultural implement a 
 fair trial, — a plough for instance, that will do better work, with a fourth 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 27 
 
 to a third less draught; the old and nearly worn out implement " does 
 well enough." Gen. T. was, we believe, the first farmer in Maryland 
 to use, and purchase a reaping machine; and by so doing, to aid the 
 inventive genius and talent of his countrymen, and also at the same 
 time greatly to benefit the interest of his brother farmers. It avails 
 little to the inventor, or the public, how valuable his improvement may 
 be, — for in nine cases out of ten the inventor is limited in means — if 
 none can be found who are both able and willing to lend a helping 
 hand to modest merit; foir true genius is ever modest; and unfortu- 
 nately the term is too often synonymous with penury and want. 
 
 Very few of the really valuable inventions inure to the benefit of the 
 inventors, — even to a tithe of the profits that are occasionally realized, 
 His necessities often compel him to a forced sale of his Patent right 
 to some capitalist who has the tact to turn other men's wits to his own 
 advantage; or the Public, — which simply means other capitalists of 
 another description, who possess little or no inventive genius them- 
 selves, and just about as much principle as genius — seize upon the 
 invention, and often in spite of law, justice, or right, reap the reward 
 justly due to another. 
 
 This however, is a digression for which we beg the reader's par- 
 don; but we could not let the occasion pass, without rendering this 
 honest tribute to the public spirited farmer, v/ho had the discernment 
 to perceive its merits, and the liberality to aid its introduction, of one 
 of the most valuable improvements of this, or any age. 
 
 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. 
 — Trial for Harvest of iSj6. 
 
 The favorable accounts of the operation of this implement, in sev- 
 eral of the Western States, induced the Board to invite Mr. Hussey to 
 bring it to Maryland and submit it to their inspection. It was accord- 
 ingly exhibited in Oxford, Talbot Co., on the first of July, in presence 
 of the Board and a considerable number of other gentlemen. Its per- 
 formance 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 July, a public exhibi- 
 tion was made at Easton, under the direction of the Board; several 
 hundred persons, principally farmers, assembled to witness it, and 
 expressed themselves as 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 trot. A concise description of this simple 
 
28 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 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 on the outside 
 of the grain, it is neither knocked down or tangled in the slightest 
 degree. Behind the wheels is a platlorm, (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 rivetted 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 plat- 
 form 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 con- 
 struction, pushes off the grain in separate bunches, each bunch mak- 
 ing 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 cut- 
 ting in the opposite direction as much of it is saved as with a cradle. 
 Fourteen acres in corn lands were cut between lO A. M., and 7^2 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 sharp- 
 ened, 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. 
 
 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 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 29 
 
 unanimously the meritorious inventor of it a handsome pair of sil- 
 ver cups. ROBT. H. GOLDSBOROUGH, 
 
 SAMUEL STEVENS, 
 SAME. T. KENNARD, 
 ROBT. BANNING, 
 SAME. HAMBEETON, Sr. 
 NICHE. GOEDSBOROUGH, 
 ED. N. HAMBEETON, 
 JAMES EI. CHAMBEREAIN, 
 MARTIN GOEDSBOROUGH, 
 HORATIO L. EDMONDSON, 
 TENCH TIEGHMAN. 
 
 The following- three letters not only embrace the year 1837, but 
 are equally good evidence from that period to the present, 1854. As 
 they are short, and to the point, we use them all. The very appropri- 
 ate and just remarks of Col. Hughes as regards the rights, and what is 
 due to inventive talent, we most cordially respond to; as must every 
 right minded and disinterested reader. He refers to Col. Edw. Lloyd 
 of " Wye House" as the largest wheat grower in Maryland; we much 
 doubt if he is not the largest in the Union. Several years since, he 
 informed us that his average crop of wheat was from 33 to 35 thousand 
 bushels; and a year or two ago we learned that the crop exceeded 
 forty thousand bushels. He now, and for many years past has used 
 Hussey's Reaper exclusively. More satisfactory and conclusive evi- 
 dence cannot be given, or desired, than is afforded in these three let- 
 ters, of the early use, and long proved efficiency of the invention. 
 
 HoRNEWOOD, E. Shore, Md., Aug. 22, '54. 
 
 Dear Sir: — In reply to your enquiry whether I recollect the time, 
 and the success of your reaping machine at my father's in 1837, I 
 answer that I do perfectly; and also seeing it in operation in company 
 with my friend Mr. J. H. Luckett, of Balto., at Col. H. L. Edmondson's 
 of Talbot Co. the same season. 
 
 My father expressed himself highly satisfied with the perform- 
 ance of the reaper, as did other gentlemen who saw it in operation at 
 Cheston. So well convinced was my father of the value of the 
 machine, that he offered you a considerable advance per acre on your 
 charge for cutting, to remain and reap his two fields, say 125 to 130 
 acres, which you declined, owing to prior engagements. At an early 
 date after this trial, my father secured one of your reapers, and the farm 
 has since never been without. 
 
 My brother Dr. DeCourcy has now one which did its work most 
 excellently well this past harvest, and without any stoppage. With 
 some trivial repairs, it has been in successful use nearly ten years. 
 
 Wishing you every possible success with your reaper, for which 
 the agricultural community owe you a heavy debt, 
 
 I am respectfully, yours, 
 
 N. H. RoziER DeCourcey. 
 
30 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 Baltimore, October 17th, 1854. 
 To Obcd Hussey, Esq. 
 
 Sir — In the harvest of 1837 I saw one of your Reapers in opera- 
 tion in my neighborhood [West River, Anne Arundel Co., Md.] in 
 charge of the Hon. John C. Weems, who I believe was the owner of it; 
 .and was so much pleased with its performance, that I ordered one 
 from you in the following year, 1838, which you set in motion for me. 
 It worked most admirably, and fully met my expectations; as it has 
 done from that early period to the present day. 
 
 In a loose way, I estimated that in the saving of labour, and grain 
 from shattering, it nearly or quite paid for itself the first harvest. Since 
 then the machine has been much improved. 
 
 Up to the time I purchased, very few had been used in this State. 
 The first, as I have always understood, was bought by that intelligent 
 and enterprising farmer. Gen. Tench Tilghman, of Oxford, Talbot 
 County. In 1838, Col. Edward Lloyd, of "Wye," Talbot Co., the largest 
 wheat grower in Maryland, and myself, as above mentioned, availed 
 ourselves of your invention; but I did not hear of any other orders for 
 it in this State. It came, like most other agricultural implements, 
 slowly into use; and I fear has not fairly compensated you for the 
 labor and ingenuity bestowed upon it. This, however, is too often the 
 fate of discoverers and inventors; and others reap the fruits of their 
 toil and genius. I have long thought that governments were unjust to 
 inventors; and could never understand why a man ha= not the same 
 right of property to a machine conceived in his head, and con- 
 structed by his hands, as to that acquired in any other manner. The 
 same that a farmer has to the lands he owns. 
 
 Very respectfully, y'r ob't serv't, 
 
 Geo. W. Hughes. 
 
 Oxford, Md., Sept. 22d, 1854. 
 Mr. Obed Hussey : 
 
 Dear Sir: — I recently received from the Commissioner of Patents 
 the Report on Mechanics for 1853, and have examined with much 
 interest the descriptions of what claim to be improvements in the 
 Reaping Machine. 
 
 I was rather surprised to find that so many of them were almost 
 identical with the notions which were tried and rejected during the 
 season 5''ou spent with me nearly twenty years ago; when for the first 
 time, (I believe,) a reaper was used throughout our entire harvest, on 
 a farm as large as six hundred acres. 
 
 You had just then arrived from Cincinnati with two machines — one 
 a reaper, and the other a reaper and mower. 
 
 They were exhibited publicly at Oxford and Easton, and their 
 operation on wheat gave entire satisfaction. The work throughout the 
 harvest was equally well done; the only objection being the delay 
 caused by repairing the machinery, a difficulty common to all new 
 machines of much power at that period. 
 
 Since then, I have used one or more reapers every year, and have 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 31 
 
 watched with much interest the progress of their improvement. I have 
 examined most of those which have the best reputation, and do not 
 believe there is a single one in which the cutting principle has not been 
 copied from yours. ' 
 
 In attempting to avoid an infringement of your patent, variations 
 have been made either in the cutting apparatus, or the driving machin- 
 ery, by which they have been made more complicated and less effi- 
 cient. Burrall's, which approaches nearest to yours in simplicity and 
 efficiency, is so close a copy, that I do not see how the courts could 
 refuse an injunction to prohibit the use of it. The only material differ- 
 ence is the attempt at a side delivery which was tried by you on your 
 first machine, and proved an entire failure. 
 
 Believing sincerely that the farmers of the U. S. owe you a debt of 
 gratitude, which a regard for themselves should prompt them to pay, 
 and understanding that attempts have been made to question even the 
 priority of your invention, I send you a volume of the Genessee 
 Farmer published in 1834, which will show the opinion entertained at 
 that time by the farmers of that celebrated wheat growing region, both 
 as to the efficiency and priority of your reaper. 
 
 Your ob't serv't, 
 
 Tench Tilghman. 
 
 As we have already much exceeded the intended limits of the 
 narrative, we might, perhaps, with propriety, here rest the Enquiry, 
 having as we think satisfactorily shown, and by evidence that cannot 
 be disproved; first, that for a period of 9 or 10 years after the alleged 
 invention of the reaper by C. H, McCormick in '31, he did not sell a 
 single machine; nor could he establish by all the evidence adduced 
 before the Board of Extensions, in 1848, that prior to 1840 or 1841, was 
 his reaper in any degree an effective or practical machine; for as he 
 himself states in the letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., it was not until 
 very material alterations — all essential it may be said — were made, 
 some 6 or 8 years after the date of the patent, could the machine be 
 made to work even tolerably well. Indeed, he states, " I may say they 
 were not of much practical value, until the improvements of my 
 second patent in 1845," being eleven years after the date of the patent, 
 and fourteen years after the alleged invention in 1831. 
 
 On the other hand we have shown by as good and respectable testi- 
 mony as can be had in any cause, that from 1833 to 1854, a period of 
 twenty-one years, Hussey's invention was most efficient and satis- 
 factory, every year ; not by cutting a patch of the fraction of an acre, 
 but by reaping hundreds, nay thousands of acres annually, by the few 
 machines placed in the hands of the farmers from '33 to '40. 
 
 As however, we have given no direct evidence from Delaware, or 
 Virginia, none from North Carolina, and but one from New York, we 
 annex a few short testimonials from each, that embrace the period 
 from 1838 to 1845; ^"<^ with a few more of the same respectable char- 
 acter up to 1853, both in this country and in England, we will leave 
 the decision of the question to the intelligent reader. — We will how- 
 
32 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 ever, call the reader's attention to the concluding paragraph of Maj. J. 
 Jones' letter, from Delaware — one of the smallest States, but contain- 
 ing as large a proportion of noble minded, talented men, and as good 
 practical farmers, as any in the Union.* 
 
 It will be perceived that a Reaper sold in 1838 to the St. George's 
 and Appoquinomick Ag. Society, had, after subsequently coming into 
 the possession of Col. Vandergrift, and prior to 1845, " cut about seven 
 hundred acres of his grain," and "was then in good repair"! We wish 
 it was in our power to state, how many times seven hundred acres, this 
 single machine had reaped since 1838. 
 
 Wheatland, Del. July 21, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Hussey — Dear Sir: I have just finished cutting my oats; I 
 finished cutting my wheat on the 28th of June, having cut over 160 
 acres, excepting what was cut by a cradle in opening tracks for the horses 
 and rounding the corners so that the machine might sweep round 
 without loss of time in turning, which it did with ease and certainty, 
 cutting more than 20 acres a day on an average. A part of the wheat 
 was so heavy as to require three active shockers to keep up with the 
 cutting; the whole cost of all necessary repairs 313^ cents for the harvest. 
 
 Of the two machines which I purchased of you, I used the large 
 one, having sold the small one to Richard Millwood, who rents the 
 farm of Dr. Noble. Strange as it may appear, I could find no laiid- 
 Jiolder in the vicinity who had enterprise enough to risk the purchase 
 of that machine until they could see it work; but after the perform- 
 ance was once witnessed, the impression it made was such as to justify 
 me in ordering you to have ten ready by next harvest for New Castle 
 County, Del. Mr. Millwood's wheat was very heavy, one measured 
 acre having 60 dozen sheaves upon it, and the whole cutting time on 
 the 40 acre field was but two days, making for the small machine a 
 full average of 20 acres per day, without any repairing or accident. 
 None of the hands who worked it had ever seen such a machine before 
 those you sent to me My crop has not all passed through the half 
 bushel yet, but it will fall but little short of 3000 bushels — I expect it 
 will all be in market to-morrow. 
 
 In conversation with Col. Vandergrift, the present owner of the 
 Reaper you sold to the St. George and Appoquinomick Agricultural 
 Society, in 1838, he told me that he had cut about 700 acres of wheat 
 and oats with it since he owned it, and up to that time the cost of 
 repairs had been $1.25 for every hundred acres cut. It was then in 
 good repair. Yours, 
 
 John Jones. 
 
 ♦It is reported of one of her sons, that during the struggle for Independence, 
 when a Delegate to the Convention from one of the largest and most powerful 
 Colonies was ready to quail and almost despair of success in the unequal contest, he 
 was encouraged and cheered on by a member from little Delaware; and told, that 
 when he found his Colony likely to be overrun by the enemy, to call on Delaware for 
 aid — she would lend a helping hand, 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 33 
 
 Jefferson County, Va., Aug. 9th, 1845. 
 To Mr. Obcd H^isscy — Dear Sir: We the undersigned having used your 
 Reaping machine during the recent harvest in cutting our respective 
 crops, take great pleasure in tendering to you this voluntary testimonial 
 of the very high estimation in which we hold your invention. We have 
 now tried your machines fully and fairly, and we are unanimous in the 
 conclusion that in every case they have borne the test in a manner 
 which has excited our highest admiration of their merits. We were 
 particularly pleased with their work in lodged grain; they cut and 
 gather every straw with the utmost ease, and the only fault at all that 
 we have had to find with them was that they did not cut wet grain with 
 facility; this single defect however, we are pleased to perceive you 
 have completely remedied with the late improvement (with open 
 guards to the knives, &c.) which the most of us saw at work in Mr. 
 Wm. Butler's field cut wet grain and green oats as well as could pos- 
 sibly be desired — it will also cut timothy and clover— so that now we 
 have no hesitation in recommending your Reaper, as we hereby most 
 cordially do, to our brother farmers, as the most complete and efificient 
 in agricultural operations, and as one which, whilst from its simple 
 and substantial construction, is not liable to be broken or to get out of 
 order, will at the same time save its owner the first year more than its 
 original cost. 
 
 Wm.. Butler, W. G. Butler, 
 
 J. H. Taylor, Jas. S. Markell, 
 
 W. Shortt, V. M. Butler, 
 
 Joseph M'Murran, Andrew MTntire, 
 
 Daniel G. Henkle, Adam Smell, 
 
 David L. Hensell, George Tabb, 
 
 John Marshall. 
 
 Washington County, Aug. 7th, 1845. 
 I hereby certify, that I have used Mr. Obed Hussey's Wheat Cutter 
 through the late harvest, and that it answered my fullest expectations, 
 in every respect, except that it will not cut when the wheat is damp 
 from rain or the dews of the morning. I cut 140 acres of wheat with it in 
 nine days; and on one occasion, cut off 30 acres in 18 hours, from day- 
 light in the morning until 1 1 o'clock the next day, and with the same 
 4 horses, never having changed them during that time. 
 
 John R. Dall. 
 
 Oaklands, (near Geneva,) N. Y. ) 
 26th August, 1845. ) 
 Mr. Obed Hiissey, Baltimore — 
 
 Dear Sir: Having housed all the grain crops of this farm, it is due 
 to you that I should now frankly admit the removal of all my doubts in 
 regard to the effectiveness and excellence of your "Reaping Machine." 
 The doubts expressed in my early correspondence with you arose 
 from the many abortive attempts in this country and in England to 
 3 
 
34 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 produce a Reaping Machine, possessing power and simplicity and dur- 
 ability; most of them were complicated, and proved too fragile. 
 
 Soon after the arrival of your Machine, I tried its power and 
 became readily familiar with the manner of using it; the result of my 
 experience will appear from the following facts: 
 
 The Wheat Crop of this farm covered 104 acres, pro'ducing 2,540 
 shocks, 30,480 sheaves, as counted on the ground, and again when 
 housed in the Grain barn and sheds. 
 
 The whole crop was cut by your Reaping Machine, in eight days, 
 using one team, a boy to drive, and a man to manage the machine. 
 
 The average quantity cut per day was 13 acres. 
 
 The largest quantity cut on any one day, was 17 acres. 
 
 The longest period for working the machine on any one day was 
 nine hours. 
 
 Seven men were stationed on the field to bind the sheaves. 
 
 The cost of cutting the wheat with your machine is tzventy-five cents 
 per acre. 
 
 The total cost for cutting, raking, binding and shocking, is scvcnty- 
 eight ce7its,dLnd a fraction per acre. 
 
 The cost may be stated as follows, viz: 
 A man and team for 8 days at 1^1.50 per day, $12 
 
 A boy to drive for 8 days at 50 cts. per day, ■ 4 
 
 Interest on cost of Machine and for wear and tear, say at 
 
 10 per cent. " lO 
 
 $26 
 
 Which is equal to 25 cents per acre on 104 acres. The seven men 
 employed to rake and bind, received each $i per day for eight days, 
 say S56 — which sum added to the cost for cutting or reaping, gives a 
 total cost of S82 — or 78 88-100 cents per acre. 
 
 I have compared this cost, with the cost paid by my neighboring 
 farmers this season, and find it vastly in favor of your machine. The 
 individual in this town who harvested with the most economy, paid 
 Si 13-100 per acre — other farmers have paid from Si 25-100 to $2 per 
 acre. - 
 
 Since the wheat harvest, the machine has cut with signal advantage 
 about twenty acres of oats. 
 
 The wheat and oats were cut with such neatness and precision that 
 the gleanings were not sufficient to pay the labor of raking. 
 
 The machine remains in perfect order; and did not fail to perform 
 all you promised. 
 
 I deem it one of the best labor- saving machines ever offered for 
 the advantage of the farmer; its effectiveness, simple and durable con- 
 struction, have been witnessed with satisfaction by a large number of 
 my neighbor farmers. Respectfully yours, 
 
 J. Delafield. 
 
 The machine alluded to in the above letter is the low priced one 
 at $100. 
 
 For 1846, '47 and '48, we copy from the Richmond Planter and 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 35 
 
 American Farmer; — and all from North Carolina, though the evidence 
 from other sections is much more extended, and equally as con- 
 clusive: 
 
 SoMERSEiT Place, Washington Co. 
 N. Carolina, 25th Aug. 1847. 
 To the Editor of the American Farmer: 
 
 Dear Sir: — Yours of the 6th ult. arrived at my residence during my 
 absence, in consequence of which I was unable to return you an 
 answer in time for your August No. of the "American Farmer," — I 
 trust, however, the delay will not materially affect the value of my 
 communication. In consequence of the recommendation of a gentle- 
 man who had used "Hussey's Reaper" in the harvest of 1846 with 
 much satisfaction, I was induced to make a trial of one the present 
 season. It was put in operation under the direction and supervision 
 of Mr. Hussey himself, upon a field of reclaimed low ground, origi- 
 nally Cypress Swamp, which of course could only be cultivated in 
 beds — these beds were six feet wide, including the water-furrow 
 between, and were intersected* at intervals of about fifty yards by 
 drains, known to us as tap-ditches, which cross the water furrows at 
 right angles, and are cut from two to four inches deeper than the 
 furrows themselves. I am particular in describing the land, as I had 
 always supposed that an insuperable obstacle in the way of the regular 
 action of any machine w'ould be found in the irregularity of surface 
 into which our land is necessarily thrown by our system of culture. 
 The machine surmounted every anticipated difficulty, and was emi- 
 nently successful, both in cutting lengthwise with the beds and across 
 them. The wheat was cut in a most thorough manner ; nothing 
 escaped the cutting surfaces, nor did weeds or any other obstruction 
 of the kind hinder the machine from doing its work perfectly. 
 During the running of the machine one day in the harvest, 17 acres of 
 wheat were cut by it* — this was done by using relays of horses, four 
 at each time, the same hands being employed however, and the work- 
 ing time was twelve hours. — After a heavy rain we were obliged to 
 abandon the use of the machine, owing to the fact that the ground 
 became so soft that the "road wheel" as it is termed, buried in the 
 soil, and would become clogged with mud. This difficulty can, I have 
 no doubt, be easily overcome by increasing the "tread" of this wheel, 
 and making some slight alteration in the coo"-wheel which gears 
 into it. 
 
 Some two years since I saw an experiment made upon an adjoining 
 estate with McCormick's machine — it cut occasionally well where the 
 wheat was free from weeds, but any obstruction from that source 
 would immediately choke it, when of course the wheat would be over- 
 run without being cut — the experiment proved a failure, and the 
 
 *When Mr. Hussey was with me I informed him that the piece of wheat cut by 
 the machine on this occasion equalled 20 acres, but I have since discovered that I 
 had been mistaken in my calculation of the acre. 
 
36 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 machine was laid aside. The blade in this machine appears to me to 
 be too delicate in its cutting surface, to succeed, except under the 
 most favorable circumstances. Quite a number of McCormick's have 
 been in use in this part of the country, during the last 2 years, and to 
 my inquiries concerning them, 1 have received but one answer and 
 that an unfavorable one. The few of Hussey's machines, on the con- 
 trary, that have been employed within my ken, have in each instance 
 given entire satisfaction — I do not hesitate to say that when well 
 managed, with a skilful hand at the rake, in dry wheat, I do not 
 recommend it when the straw is wet,) it will, as compared with 
 ordinary cutting, save per acre the entire expense of reaping, from the 
 thorough manner in which every stalk is cut, thus preventing loss 
 or waste. 
 
 Believing as I do, that a great desideratum to those who grow 
 wheat upon a large scale, is to be found in Mr. Hussey's Reaper, I 
 cannot but wish that both he and they may reap the benefit of its 
 general adoption. 
 
 I am sir, very respectfully your ob't serv't, 
 
 JosiAH Collins. 
 
 Edenton, N. C, January 25th, 1848. 
 To the Editor of the American Farmer: 
 
 Dear Sir: — Some months ago I received a letter from you, making 
 enquiries of me, relative to Hussey's Reaping Machine. When your 
 letter reached me, I was on the eve of leaving home for the summer, 
 and since my return home, my engagements have been of such a 
 character as to cause me until the present to neglect replying to it. 
 
 I have used one of Hussey's machines one season, and though 
 under circumstances not very favorable for the machine, I take 
 pleasure in stating that its operation was satisfactory. During my 
 harvest, which was about three weeks' duration, this machine was kept 
 constantly at work, with the exception of a day and a half, yet I did 
 not ascertain how many acres it would reap. Mr. Collins, of Lake 
 Scuppernong, also used one last season, and from him I learned that 
 he cut upwards of 20 acres a day. 
 
 There is certainly much less wheat left in the field by one of these 
 machines, than is by the ordinary method of reaping by the scythe or 
 reap hook; it cuts close, lays the straw smoothly, thus rendering tying 
 of it in sheaves much easier. 
 
 I have witnessed McCormick's, which I consider a poor affair, and 
 meriting no consideration except a dissent from me. Many of this 
 last kind of reaper found their way here a few years ago; they now, or 
 rather their remains, may be seen lying in the field whence they will 
 never be removed. 
 
 Thos. D. Warren. 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 37 
 
 [From the Richmond Planter.] 
 HUSSEY'S AND M'CORMICK'S REAPERS. 
 
 It is very painful to be compelled to inflict a private injury in the 
 discharge of a public duty; upon a particular system of cultivation we 
 can talk and write without restraint; but when we are called on to dis- 
 cuss the merits of an invention, upon which the fortunes of the origi- 
 nator may absolutely depend, it is a much more responsible and 
 delicate ofifice. We are aware, too, that in introducing a subject of the 
 kind, we are opening the floodgates of a controversy that is often hard 
 to close; we have had the strongest evidence of that fact in the con- 
 troversy that once occurred in this paper between Messrs. M'Cormick 
 and Hussey, and yet it is to the relative merits of the reaping machines 
 of these two gentlemen, that we are compelled again to draw the 
 public attention. Probably not less than fifteen thousand dollars has 
 been spent in Virginia this summer for reaping machines, and it 
 becomes a subject of great importance to the wheat growing com- 
 munity at least, to ascertain how such a sum is annually to be dispensed 
 to the greatest advantage. We shall express no opi/iion ourself in the 
 discussion which must necessarily follow the introduction of this sub- 
 ject, and we would greatly prefer that neither of the gentlemen more 
 particularly interested in the subject would appear in our columns. 
 We will publish statements of facts for either, provided they are made 
 over responsible names, and are short and perminent. As one of these 
 facts we feel bound to state, that we acted this year as the agent for 
 M'Cormick's machine, and we have heard great complaint of the 
 manner in which it was gotten up; but it is but fair also to state, that 
 we believe Mr. M'Cormick himself has been superintending the manu- 
 facture of his machine in the State of N. York, and that probably his 
 work has not been as well done as it would have been could he have 
 seen to it in person. The following communication is altogether in favor 
 of Hussey's machine: 
 
 " I have had in operation on my plantation this year both Hussey's 
 and M'Cormick's reapers. — Now, as you have asked me to furnish the 
 "Planter" with the result of my own experience and opinion as to the 
 comparative merit of the two machines, it is now at your service. I 
 have had them both in operation (as the weather would permit,) for the 
 last fortnight, and have cut with the two rather upwards of two 
 hundred acres of wheat. Both machines have been, I think very fairly 
 tested in all qualities of grain, from wheat five feet and more in height, 
 both standing up, and lodged and tangled, and averaging, as is sup- 
 posed, from thirty and forty bushels, down to light thin wheat, not 
 averaging more than four bushels, (being some galled hills,) and I am 
 ca?ididly diud decidedly of opinion that Hussey's machine is vastly sitpe- 
 hor. I deem it superior, not only in the execution of its work, but in 
 the durability of the machine. So well pleased am I with its perform- 
 ance, that I have ordered another machine of Hussey's for my next 
 
38 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 harvest, and also one, and probably two, for my father's plantation. I 
 consider this machine invaluable to the grower of wheat, and would 
 recommend every farmer who grows even fifty acres of wheat, to pur- 
 chase one. He may rest assured that he will be pleased with his pur- 
 chase. I shall probably be in Richmond shortly. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 T. Pollock Burguyn. 
 
 Occonichee Wigwam, near Halifax, N. C. June 20, 184.6. 
 
 For 1849 ^^^'^ 1850 we will return and see how the Invention pro- 
 gresses on the broad Prairies and fertile lands of the West, where it 
 first operated — -in 1833 and 1834; — and where too, although the most 
 luxuriant crops 2^x0. grown with comparatively but little labor, it would 
 in many cases be next to impossible to save tJicm, without the aid of 
 this invaluable invention. 
 
 These certificates embrace the mowing of large crops of grass as 
 well as grain, and in addition, the cutting of more than three hundred 
 acres of Jicmp in the harvest of 1849 ^^'^^ i850> by " the same single 
 machine." 
 
 Hussey's complete success in cutting grass and hemp, was no new 
 thing ten 3'ears ago; but we suppose, like the grain cutting, in the 
 view of Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., " IX.'i perfection depended on its being 
 7ieiv only in England," full eighteen years after it was effected in 
 America. 
 
 Blackberry, Kane county. 111., Aug. 28, '49. 
 This may certify that I have had one of Mr. Hussey's Mowing and 
 Reaping Machines on my farm this year cutting Wheat, Oats, and 
 Grass for a short time. I think nothing can beat it cutting Timothy 
 Grass, and I intend to purchase one for that purpose. While the 
 machine was cutting Prairie Grass in my field, I cut off a dry poplar 
 stake, one inch in diameter, which had been sticking in the ground 
 after it had been laid off for a ditch. I am of the opinion that it will 
 cut wheat well, where it is so much lodged, or so foul with stiff weeds' 
 or corn stalks, that it cannot be cut with any other machine I have 
 seen in this country. Some of my neighbors say that they intend to 
 have Mr. Hussey's Reaper in preference to any other; and from what 
 I can learn, this opinion is pretty general in my neighborhood, 
 amongst those who have seen this machine work, and are acquainted 
 with other machines. My brother farmers have had great trouble with 
 McCormick's machine, by the breaking of sickles, and the great diffi- 
 culty or rather the impossibility of getting them repaired, or getting 
 new ones made when broken, whereas the blades of Mr. Hussey's 
 machine can be made by any common blacksmith. I have no doubt 
 but Mr. Hussey's machine will come into general use. 
 
 D. W. Annis. 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 39 
 
 Frank lifi Precinct, DcKalb Co., Aug. 13, '49. 
 This may certify that we have seen Mr. O. Hussey's machine cut 
 about an acre of wheat, so badly lodged that McCormick's Reaper 
 could do nothing with it, nor could it be cradled. Said Hussey's 
 machine cut it handsomely, and laid it in very good bundles for 
 binding. 
 
 John Schoomaker, Daniel Miller, 
 
 Albert Field, Albert Field, Jr , 
 
 John M, Schoomaker, Isaac Crill, 
 
 John Miller. 
 
 Berkshire, Kane cowity, III. Aug. 6, 1849. 
 We, the undersigned, having seen Mr. Hussey's Reaper work at 
 cutting grass and grain, think it preferable to McCormick's or any 
 other machine that we have seen. It cut wheat that could not be cut 
 with McCormick's Reaper or a cradle. We are well acquainted with 
 McCormick's Machine 
 
 P. A. HixBY, David Shanks, 
 
 John Griggs, Jr., Abraham Shirwood, 
 
 John Griggs, James Hess, 
 
 Harry Potter, Alson Banker, 
 
 John Shirwood, D. C. Wright, 
 
 Seth Shirwood, ' E^lisha Wright. 
 
 Osivcgo, III., Aug. 2, 1S49. 
 This may certify that I cut a lot of Black Sea Wheat with Mr. O. 
 Hussey's Reaper; the wheat was so badly lodged that no McCormick 
 Reaper or Cradle could cut it; Mr. Hussey's Reaper cut it clean and 
 laid the bundles out of the track in good order for binding. I have 
 seen the work done by this machine in grass: it was as good work as 
 ever I saw done by a scythe, or better. For my choice I should 
 rather have my grass cut by the Reaper than by the scythe. Every 
 farmer ought to have such a machine, and every farmer I hear talk 
 about it says the same. 
 
 Philip Young. 
 
 Sugar Grove, August 8, 1849. 
 This may certify that we have seen Mr. O. Hussey's machine 
 operate in clean grain, and where weeds were very tall, large and 
 thick. In the former, it operated as well as any machine we have 
 seen; in the latter, it worked to a charm, even where it was impracti- 
 cable to cut with one of McCormick's Reapers. 
 
 Harry White, Hiram Tubs, 
 
 L. B. Snow, Dwight Spencer, 
 
 Chauncy Snow, Samuel Ward, 
 
 Sullivan Dorr, A. Logan. 
 
40 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 Springfield, (111.) Dec. 25, 1850. 
 Mr. Obcd H7issey, Baltimore, Md: 
 
 Dear Sir — I have used one of your Mowing and Reaping Machines, 
 and consider it the best machine I ever saw, and never intend to do 
 without one, if it is possible to get one, even if I have to go to Balti- 
 more and remain at the shop till one can be made. I do candidly 
 believe if I had had one ten years ago, I would now feel like a much 
 younger man; and cheerfully recommend them to all who have grass 
 or grain to cut, as a machine that will do their work in perfect order, 
 neatness, and with ease to all employed. 
 
 John Simms, 
 4 miles west of Springfield, 111. 
 
 Utica, Lasal Co. 111. Dec. 14, 1850. 
 Obcd Hitsscy, Esq — Dear Sir: — I received your Reaping and Mow- 
 ing Machine in time for harvest, and used it for harvesting and for 
 mowing. I am fully satisfied that your machines are the best yet 
 offered to the farmers of this State. I have mowed about four hun- 
 dred acres, a great portion of which was wild prairie, very frequently 
 running against stones and ant heaps with sufficient force to throw 
 both driver and raker off the machine, without injury to the machine. 
 Why your machine is preferable to any other, is — after you have cut 
 your different kinds of grain, fully as well as can be done with any 
 other machine, with not over fifteen minutes' work, you can take the 
 same machine into your meadow or on to the prairie, and cut your 
 grass at the rate of ten acres per day, cutting closer and cleaner than 
 can be done with a scythe. — With proper care, your machines will last 
 fifteen or twenty years, with trifling repairs. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 James Clark. 
 
 Isla?id Grove, Sa?igamo?i Co. III. Dec. 25, 1850. 
 Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore, Md. — Dear Sir — Last summer I 
 received two of Hussey's Mowing and Reaping Machines; one from 
 your own shop in Baltimore, and the other manufactured in this State, 
 Unfortunately for me, I retained the one manufactured in this State, 
 and with some difficulty succeeded in cutting about two hundred acres 
 of wheat and grass. The one from your shop I let Mr. John Simms 
 have, who cut his wheat, oats and hay, (about seventy-five acres), with 
 perfect satisfaction and ease, most of it with two horses, and without 
 being obliged to grind the knives. After Mr. Simms finished his har- 
 vest he let Mr. James D. Smith, of Island Grove, have it, who cut 
 about three hundred acres of grass with it, the machine giving perfect 
 satisfaction. Very respectfully yours, 
 
 Edward J. Eno. 
 
 Carrolton, Green Co., III., Dec. 27, 1850. 
 I procured one of Mr. Hussey's Reaping and Mowing Machines 
 from Baltimore last spring; I cut eighty acres of wheat, and ten acres 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 41 
 
 of oats, and fifty acres of timothy with it, to my entire satisfaction — 
 after which I cut sixty acres of cloverseed with it in less than five 
 days. I could not have saved the cloverseed without the machine, 
 so I consider I saved the whole cost of the machine in'the saving of 
 the cloverseed alone. 
 
 Samuel Thomas. 
 
 Springfield, III., Dec. 25, 1850. 
 Mr. Obcd Hussey, Balthnorc, Md. 
 
 Dear Sir: — During the harvest of August, 1849, with one of your 
 machines I cut sixty acres of Hemp, using a set of 4^ feet knives and 
 guards, and two teams of four horses each, changing every two rounds, 
 which cut on an average eight acres per day. This last harvest, the 
 same single machine, with 6 foot guides and knives,* operated by the 
 same force, cut successfully 250 acres of hemp, or from 10 to 12 acres 
 per day. From this experience, I take pleasure in recommending 
 your Cutters above the hemp cradle and hook, not only as labor-sav- 
 ing, by the expedition with which they cut, but as hemp saving, from 
 the perfect thoroughness, evenness and nearness to the ground with 
 which they do their work, and the regular and collected form in 
 which they leave the hemp after being cut. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 Edward S. Cox. 
 
 Carrolton, Lebanon Co. III. Sept. 1850. 
 Mr. 0. Hnsscy: — The four Reaping and Mowing Machines you sent, 
 arrived safe and in good order. Their performance far exceeded our 
 expectations, the work went on so smoothly that we scarcely knew it 
 was hay time and harvest. * * * If your machine had been as 
 well known as they are now, you could have sold twenty as well as 
 one. Yours, Jonas Ward. 
 
 The few letters which follow, taken from the American Farmer, 
 and referring to a still later period, are selected for their brevity, from 
 many others, and principally from Maryland and Ohio. It is consid- 
 ered unnecessary to extend the list, for the operation and character of 
 the machine is too well and too widely known at this day to render it 
 necessary to the intelligent farmer and general reader, in any grain 
 growing section of the country.f 
 
 *The cutters were lengthened by removing a board that previously reduced the 
 cutting space to 4;4 feet in length. 
 
 ■fWith the view of determining as far as possible, which was the best Reaping 
 and Mowing Machines for the farmer to purchase, the Maryland State Agricultural 
 Society in 1852 offered a prize of one hundred dollars, — the largest yet offeretl in the 
 country — for the best machine, to be tested by a committee appointed by the Society; 
 a large committee of men of the lirst standing in the State, and all large wheat 
 growers, was appointed, and extended notice published of the trial to take place 
 at "Wye " the seat of Col. Edward Lloyd, Eastern Shore, Md., in July. 
 
 Every effort was made by the Society and Committee to give a fair and satisfac- 
 
42 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 Harewood, i2mo,8, 1852. 
 Having used one of O. Hussey's reaping and Mowing Machines 
 during the last harvest (1852) I can state that in cutting Wheat, Oats 
 and Cloverseed — also in mowing my crop of grass, it has fully 
 answered my expectations, doing the work better than I ever had it 
 done by the scythe, and at much less expense. The machine has been 
 tested by cutting some fifty to sixty acres of grass — quite suflficient to 
 prove its complete adaptation to mowing as well as reaping. 
 
 EDWARD STABLER. 
 
 Wye House, Dec. 20, 1852. 
 Dear Sir: — Having worked your Reaper for many years, I have 
 fully tested its merits. It has proved itself to be, not only a wheat 
 saving implement, but a labor and time saving one — these are all im- 
 portant to the farmer. 
 
 It does its work completely, regardless of the position of the wheat, 
 if in condition to bind. 
 
 Those you sent me in the spring worked well through the harvest, 
 and proved their strength. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 EDW'D LLOYD. 
 
 Oxford, Md., Dec. 8, 1852. 
 Mr. Obed Hussey — Sir: I have used your Reaper with such entire 
 satisfaction, that I am but performing a duty to my brother farmers by 
 recommending it in the strongest terms. 
 
 For sixteen years I have used a Reaping Machine, and know from 
 experience that the most important qualities are j/nv/^/// and simplicity. 
 In these respects your machine is superior to any other, and is the 
 only one I have seen which can be safely entrusted to the manage- 
 ment of ordinary overseers, with negro laborers. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 TENCH TILGHMAN. 
 
 Hayes, Montgomery Co., Md., Dec. ,7, 1852. 
 I purchased in the year 185 1 one of Mr. Obed Hussey's Reaping 
 Machines — I used it that year and this year in cutting my grain; I was 
 pleased with the machine; I consider it a valuable implement, and 
 hope never to be without one while I continue to be a farmer. My 
 machine was used in cutting wheat and oats — it was not designed for 
 grass; I employed it about half the day, and reaped about ten acres of 
 land in grain — the rest of the day was devoted to the securing of the 
 grain; I used four horses. My machine, I believe, was of the smallest 
 
 tory trial; as the extent of crops in that fine wheat growing region, and extensive 
 level face of the country, are unsurpassed anywhere for such an exhibition. 
 
 But two machines were entered for competition, McKeever's and Hussey's. The 
 prize was awarded unanimously to Hussey. Why no others could be induced to 
 attend, was a matter of surprise at the time, and so remains with many. 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 43 
 
 size, and was without front wheels; with wheels it would have been a 
 relief to the horses. 
 
 I cannot speak of the relative value of this machine compared with 
 others, having never seen any Reaping Machines but Hussey's at work, 
 I do not think I could be induced to return to the old mode of cutting 
 grain by the scythe and cradle. 
 
 Respectfully vours, &c., 
 
 ROBERT P. DUNLOP. 
 
 Forest Hill, King and Queen Co., Va., 
 
 Dec. 24, 1852. 
 
 Mr. O. Hussey — Sir: It gives me pleasure to state that I used your 
 Reaping Machine in my late harvest with great satisfaction. It fully 
 equals my expectation as a labor-saving implement, and does the work 
 better than can be done by the cradle. I would farther state, that the 
 seven which were purchased along with mine for my relations and 
 friends of this county, have given in every instance, entire satisfaction. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 WM. D. GRESHAM. 
 
 To the Editor of the Americati Farmer — 
 
 Dear Sir: — Having had a fair opportunity of observing the per- 
 formance of Mr. Hussey's celebrated "Reaper" on my farm last season, 
 under circumstances peculiarly calculated to test its efificiency, I think 
 it not inappropriate to bear my testimony in its favor. 
 
 I finished cutting my grain more than a week ago. The grain was 
 not only blown as flat as possible, but was tangled and twisted together, 
 and lying in every direction; so much so that it would have been impos- 
 sible to cut a large portion of it with the cradle. No one who saw the 
 field believed the machine could possibly succeed. 
 
 I take great pleasure in stating that its success was perfect and 
 entire. It cut and gathered the grain in the very worst spots almost 
 as well as that which was standing; and I was thus enabled to mow my 
 crop in about one-half the time the old fashioned method would have 
 required, thereby effecting a large pecuniary gain. It cuts the grass 
 as evenly and as close as the most expert mower. I need scarcely say 
 that I am perfectly satisfied with it. I subscribe myself yours, &c. 
 
 AOUILLA TALBOT. 
 
 Alexandria, Va., i2mo, ii, 1852. 
 It gives me much pleasure to state that I have had in use on my farm 
 in Montgomery County, Md., for the past two seasons, one of "Hussey's 
 Reapers," and its operation has given me e?itire satisfaction in every 
 respect. It appears to combine the three qualities so important to the 
 farmer, efficiency, durability and economy. I can, with great sincerity, 
 recommend its general adoption. 
 
 BENJAMIN HALLOWELL. 
 
44 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 To Obed Hussey — Dear Sir: — Having used one of your Reapers 
 upon land, a great deal of which was hilly, stony and rough; I take 
 pleasure in saying that it has given entire satisfaction, and proved to 
 be a very durable, well built, and great labor saving machine. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 A. B. DAVIS. 
 Greenwood, Mont. Co., Md. Dec. 20, 1852. 
 
 PiCK.\WAY County, O., July ist, 185 1. 
 
 1 made an experiment this season in my field, of testing the Mc- 
 Cormick and Hussey Reapers. I tried each fairly, and under similar 
 circumstances. I am satisfied that Hussey's is decidedly the best 
 Reaper, both as to cutting grain and durability. — The objections made 
 to Hussey's Reaper by agents and manufacturers of other machines, I 
 do not find, upon trial, to exist in any one particular. 
 
 WM. STAGE. 
 
 We, the undersigned present at the trial, concur in Mr. Stage's 
 statement: — Z. Pritchett, John Reber, Philip Stuart, Isaac Stage, John 
 Hogeland, Michael Eyer. 
 
 Salem Tp. Champaign Co. O. July, 1851. 
 I have worked with McCormick and Hussey's Reapers three sea- 
 sons, and unqualifiedly pronounce Hussey's the best machine. It 
 cuts cleaner and faster, and leaves the grain in better order on the 
 ground; and this is the opinion of every hand in giving an expression 
 of the comparative merits of the two machines. 
 
 THOS. OUTRAM. 
 
 Union Township, Champaign County, O., ) 
 
 July,i85i. f 
 I have for the past four seasons worked Hussey's Reaper, and 
 unhesitatingly pronounce it vastly superior to McCormick's or any 
 other Reaper I have seen used. 
 
 WILLIAM T. ZOMBRO. 
 
 Salem Township, Champaign County, O., 
 
 July, 185 1. 
 
 I have had Hussey's Reaper used on my farm. — It will cut 20 acres 
 of the heaviest wheat per day, with ease. I consider it far superior to 
 the McCormick Reaper. JOSHUA BUFFINGTON. 
 
 Ross County, Ohio, July, 185 1. 
 I have used Hussey's Reaper,and consider it an invaluable machine. 
 I have seen McCormick's Reaper operate, and am of opinion that 
 Hussey's is the best machine. 
 
 D. M'CONNELL. 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 45 
 
 Union Township, Champaign County, O., 
 
 Aug., 1851. 
 
 I have used Hussey's Reaper for four years. 1 prefer it to every 
 other machine. I do not have to drive fast, and the raking is the 
 easiest work in the f^eld. JOHN EARSOM. 
 
 Salem Township, Champaign County, O., 
 
 Aug., 1851. 
 
 I bought a Hussey Reaper this season, and it has given the best 
 satisfaction. I cut wheat that was down as badly as any I ever saw. 
 It operated well by driving in a slow walk. My hands would rather 
 rake than bind. JOHN LEE. 
 
 Union Township, Champaign County, O., ) 
 
 July, 1851. f 
 I have used for five years Hussey's Reaper. It is a labor and grain 
 saving machine. It is a much better machine than McCormick's, in 
 several particulars; it is more substantial, not so liable to injury, and 
 will cut faster and cleaner. I cut this season, with three horses, sixteen 
 acres of heavy wheat, in five hours and thirty minutes. 
 
 REZIN C. WILSON. 
 
 Bergen, Sept. i, 1851. — This is to certify that I have for three 
 seasons used one of Hussey's Reaping Machines, which I purchased 
 at the Gennesee Seed Store, and that it gives perfect satisfaction. I 
 have cut my wheat when it was very badly lodged, much faster, better 
 and cheaper than it could have been done in any other way. I had 
 one of McCormick's, but left it in the road, a useless article, as I con- 
 sider it; having tried for three years to use it without success. 
 
 I consider Hussey's machine just the thing for our farmers, and I 
 could not now, after having proved its merits, be induced to be with- 
 out one. ^ NOAH WILSON. 
 
 With a few general remarks as to the reputation of Reaping 
 Machines in England, and on the authority of the annexed English 
 publications, we take leave of the subject. 
 
 At the trial for which the "Great Council Medal" was awarded, but 
 which no practical farmer in this country would consider as any trial 
 at all, being merely the attempt to cut a small space in green and wet 
 grain, and during the temporary absence of Hussey, his machine was 
 operated by ignorant laborers of the "Chrystal Palace," and who had 
 never before seen a reaping machine. 
 
 This did not satisfy the English farmers; complaints were soon 
 heard of injustice, partiality, and unfairness. It compelled C. H. Mc- 
 Cormick or his agents to offer a challenge, which was promptly 
 accepted by Hussey; and before the Cleveland Agricultural Society a 
 tolerably fair trial was had of the rival machines, though neither the 
 grain or ground was then in a suitable state. For the decision of 
 
46 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 
 
 twelve prominent men and practical farmers, we refer to the annexed 
 English account for the complete triumph of the unmedalled machine. 
 
 In an interview with an extensive agricultural implement maker of 
 Yorkshire — himself an inventor of many valuable implements, and to 
 no small extent a rival — he spoke of Obed Hussey as a man who con- 
 ferred honor on his own country; as well by his genius and talents, as 
 by his integrity of character. This feeling was alike honorable to the 
 gentleman who gave it expression, and just to an American citizen. 
 
 Obed Hussey is perhaps the only American who ever waved the 
 "Stars and Stripes" on the soil of England, [placed there too, at dif- 
 ferent times, on his machine, by Englis]uncn\ or who could do it with- 
 out a strong feeling of envy and jealousy being engendered. Even 
 Englishmen, jealous as they are known to be, viewed Hussey as a 
 public benefactor, and his mission as one calculated either directly or 
 indirectly to benefit all classes. Yet in his own country, which he has 
 so signally benefitted, he is compelled to supplicate for years, and 
 as yet in vain, for rights, that others, with not a tithe of his claim and 
 merit, but with more ample means perhaps, or more influential friends, 
 succeed in obtaining. It is a reproach to the age and to the Halls of 
 Legislation. When it was supposed this great invention was perfected 
 in England, many years ago — though 7iot successful, as was subse- 
 quently proved — the Nation took the matter in hand,and Parliament 
 voted a reward to its author. 
 
 At the great Agricultural Exhibition for "Bath and the West of 
 England," held at Plymouth in 1853, the Plymouth Mail states: ["the 
 interest and excitement created by the trial of Reaping Machines was 
 very great, and the crowd of persons assembled to witness their per- 
 formance was immense"] — that Hussey won the prize for Reaping, by 
 acclamation, over all competitors — the only other American machine 
 present, McCormick's included; and an eye witness states that three 
 cheers were proposed for Mr. Hussey by Sir Thomas Ackland, the 
 President, and member of Parliament, which was responded to by 
 thousands, and without a dissenting voice; that his reaper was crowned 
 with laurel by the Judges, and the "stars and stripes" waved in triumph 
 twenty-five feet high over American ingenuity and enterprise on Eng- 
 lish soil. 
 
 At this trial it was again demonstrated to the agriculturists of 
 Great Britain by Obed Hussey, [and not for the first time, though he 
 was \\v& first to do it], that his machine would cut their grass quite as 
 perfectly as their "corn." The Mail goes on to say: "A mowing 
 machine was so remote from the expectations and hopes of the Society, 
 that no prize was offered for one; yet Mr. Hussey was prepared with 
 a mowing machine, which was taken to an adjoining field of meadow 
 grass and clover mixed. The people followed, but evidently with no 
 expectation of being gratified. The machine mower was put inaction, 
 and to the admiration of every one, it cut the grass with an evenness 
 and precision which is truly surprising, being more close and even 
 than a scythe. The grass left behind the machine was quite evenly 
 spread, and where it was not so, it lay so light and open that the use 
 
INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 47 
 
 of the tending machine was scarcely necessary. The admiration of 
 the truly astonishing performance was universal. 
 
 The cutting the rye was looked for, but mowing the grass took 
 every one by surprise. Thus, a great desideratum has been achieved; 
 the farmer has now only to gear up his horses and take a ride through 
 his meadow, and his grass is cut." 
 
 Again, at the Royal Agricultural Society's Exhibition, held at Lin- 
 coln, the present season, the Mark Lane Express states that Hussey's 
 machine won the prize over all competitors; and admits that Bell's 
 machine was "at last fairly beaten." 
 
 Is there an Amcrica7i who can read these accounts who does not 
 feel indebted to the man who, solely by his own perseverance and skill, 
 has added lustre to his country's renown in the peaceful walks of life? 
 If the same man, as a "warrior in hostile array," had raised the same 
 flag in triumph on the same soil, how would his countrymen have 
 rewarded him? Doubtless by a "vote of thanks by both Houses of 
 Congress," together with a sword and gold medal, if not a monument 
 in addition! 
 
 Should not those be equally honored and rewarded by the Country, 
 who are engaged in the arts and in agriculture; who devote their 
 energies to add to the comfort and happiness of their fellow man, as 
 those engaged in shedding blood, making widows and orphans to 
 mourn for their untimely bereavement, and who literally for hire, not 
 patriotism, and with the spirit demons, seek to slay and destroy? 
 
 We fully believe so; for fame and renown in arms are rarely or 
 never acquired, except by entailing misery and distress on our fellow 
 beings, and engendering the worst feelings and passions of our 
 nature. 
 
 But we hope for the advent of better days; when, if the political 
 sword is not literally beaten into a plough-share, and the partizan spear 
 turned into a pruning hook, the inventive genius and talent of our coun- 
 trymen shall be more aided and better rewarded by Government, in its 
 praiseworthy efforts "for the diffusion of knowledge among men," in 
 all that really ennobles the mind, and benefits the whole human family. 
 Such, at least, is the earnest wish and desire of 
 
 A Farmer and Mechanic. 
 
HUSSEY'S 
 
 REAPING AND MOWING MACHINE 
 
 IN ENOLAND. 
 
 In presenting the following pages for consideration of the farmers 
 of the country, the subscriber has confined himself strictly to matters 
 selected from English papers, which will speak for itself. As a short 
 explanation from me will be looked for, I will merely state, that at the 
 trial in presence of the Exhibition Jury, Mr. McCormick's machine 
 was operated by an experienced hand sent from the United States, 
 while mine was managed by English laborers of the lower class, who 
 were total strangers to it, and had never seen it in operation. The 
 trial was made in unripe wheat on a rainy day. My machine was 
 very improperly adjusted for the work and wrongly put together, in 
 consequence of which the ignorant raker failed to deliver the sheaves, 
 and it stopped as a matter of course, and was immediately laid aside, 
 after cutting but a few feet. My machine was never tried in presence 
 of that Jury by any other hands, or in any other condition, myself not 
 being in England. 
 
 It was on such a trial that the Exhibition medal was disposed of, 
 and with what justice the reader can judge by reading the following 
 pages. On my arrival in England I took my machine into the field 
 that it might work its way into public favor, as it best could. After 
 being exhibited in several places, its rising fame appeared to produce 
 some effect, as it will appear by the following in the Windsor and 
 Eaton Express, of Nov. 8, 1851: 
 
 Alluding to the astonishing and unexpected performance of my 
 Reaper, it says: — By this 7i/iIooked for turn of events, the proprietors of 
 M' CorDiiek's macJiine found tliat their supref)U7cy zvas 710 longer luuiisputed, 
 and that the necessity zvas laid tipon them to look to their laurels ; tJiey there- 
 fore came boldly foricard, and threzv down the gauntlet.' /" 
 
 That farmers who are acquainted with my reaper may understand 
 why it failed to perform well in the hands of strangers at the Exhibi- 
 tion trial where McCormick got the medal, It will be necessary for 
 me to say, that when the machine was sent from Baltimore it was set 
 to cut high. That when the inexperienced hands undertook to make 
 it cut low, they pitched down the cutters by putting on the tongue, 
 not knowing any other way to lower it. In doing so the hind part of 
 the platform was of course raised high. In this condition the unprac- 
 ticed raker failed to push the heavy wet wheat off up an inclined plane; 
 and as a matter of course the machine choaked, and for the same 
 
 48 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 49 
 
 reason that a mill will choak when the corn goes in faster than the meal 
 comes out. A skillful hand would have lowered the cut at the axle of 
 the machine, and brought the platform horizontal or lowest at the rear, 
 as it should be in cutting wet grain. 
 
 The following pages will show the result, the authenticity of which, 
 if doubted, will be proved by the production of the originals in my 
 possession. OBED HUSSEY. 
 
 Baltimore, Md., Jan. i, 1852. 
 
 From the Hull \_ England^ Advertiser, Sept. 5, 185 1. 
 
 At the annual meeting on Mr. Mechi's Farm at Tiptree Heath, a 
 few weeks ago, a brief report of which appeared in the Hull Adver- 
 tiser at the time, several reaping machines were tested, the result then 
 being that one manufactured and invented by Mr McCormick, of 
 America, was the only one which was considered to have done its 
 work properly. Amongst those tried, was one invented and manu- 
 factured by Mr. O. Hussey, Baltimore, Md. (U.S.) which in the opinion 
 of gentlemen then present, did not fully accomplish the object in view. 
 It should, however be mentioned, that while Mr. McCormick's machine 
 had on that trial the advantage of the superintendence of persons inti- 
 mately acquainted with its mechanism, and who had been accustomed 
 to the working of the machine for some years, Mr. Hussey's invention 
 was (in the absence of the inventor) in the hands of persons entirely 
 unacquainted with the proper mode of working it. Since then Mr. 
 Hussey himself has come over to England, in order to superintend his 
 machine, and the result has been that it is now brought out to receive 
 a thorough trial of its merits, 
 
 The trial of Wednesday, however, was the best. It took place in a 
 field belonging to Mr. Coskill, Grovehill Lane, Beverly. There was 
 assembled durmg the day a great number of farmers and gentlemen 
 interested in agriculture, who witnessed the trial with great interest. 
 
 The wheat in this case was very much "laid;" indeed in many 
 places it was almost flat on the ground. It therefore afforded one of 
 the best opportunities for judging of the capabilities of the machine 
 under disadvantageous circumstances that could possibly occur. 
 
 On the whole, the conclusion come to was, that the reaping was 
 done as well by machine as by hand. No one doubted for a moment 
 that it would cut corn well where it was standing; but some farmers 
 thought it would not equal the scythe where the corn was laid. The 
 result, however, showed the contrary, and every person acknowledged 
 that it had succeeded admirably. After cutting a large quantity of 
 wheat, the machine was taken into another field, and after a slight 
 alteration, set to work to cut clover. We understand that on the day 
 before previous to coming to Hull, it had been tried on clover and cut 
 it extremely well. 
 
 As the machine cut along it was followed closely by groups of 
 farmers striving hard to find flaws in its performance. But they could 
 not. On the contrary, in those places where the corn was most "laid," 
 4 
 
50 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 and where, consequently, the greatest difficulty must occur in the cut- 
 tingt the manner in which the reaper did its work elicited their loudest 
 approbation; — "Why," said one burly old gentleman by our side, "a 
 man with a scythe could never cut it like that." " It is wonderful," said 
 another. 
 
 Fro7n the Morning Advertiser, Sept. 12, 185 1. 
 
 On Monday last, the public trial of Hussey's patent Reaping 
 Machine took place with the permission of his Grace, the Duke of 
 Marlborough, on his Grace's estate of Blenheim, near Woodstock, 
 Oxfordshire, and also, on the adjoining one of Mr. Southern, one of 
 the most considerable landed proprietors of the country. A large 
 assemblage of the Agriculturists of the highest class attracted by the 
 celebrity which this ingenious and efficient contrivance has acquired for 
 itself in a course of successful experiments performed last week in York- 
 shire, were present to witness the trial, mostly from Oxfordshire and 
 the adjoining counties, but many from a considerable distance, and all 
 of them concurred in the most ready acknowledgments of its 
 advantages. 
 
 The reaping commenced at eleven o'clock in the barley field, the 
 machine being drawn by two fine chestnut horses, lent by his Grace 
 for the purpose of the experiment, in which he took the deepest inter- 
 est, following the reaper in a car, and watching with evident satisfac- 
 tion, the ease and rapidity with which the blades cut down the golden 
 produce of the field. The crop was by no means one calculated to 
 favor the experiment. On the contrary, some of it was down and 
 much laid. It was cut down, however, with great regularity and speed, 
 and the general evenness of the stubble was the subject of general 
 remark. As the machine passed on, hewing its way at a smart pace 
 through the dense mass of stalks, the crowd of eager observers rushed 
 after it, and many were the cheers with which it was welcomed. Occa- 
 sionally, to satisfy the ideas of the more fastidious, the level of the 
 cutters was changed, so as to leave a greater or less length of stubble, 
 and it was evident to all that in this respect the machine was suscepti- 
 ble of the nicest adjustment. Sometimes at the end of a turn it was 
 rested to give the farmers an opportunity of inspecting it, which they 
 seemed nevertired of doing, and then it was turned round at right angles 
 to cut in the cross direction. In the experiments upon barley, it 
 showed itself capable of reaping the enormous space of 15 acres, which 
 we believe is from eight to nine times the power of the most vigorous 
 and skillful reaper. Afterwards the machine was taken into a large 
 field of clover, which it cut to within two inches of the ground, and 
 with still greater rapidity. 
 
 His Grace repeatedly expressed his admiration of the powers of 
 the apparatus, and congratulated some of the agricultural gentlemen 
 present with him on the prospects of greater economy and security in 
 harvesting which it afforded them. — These opinions were generally 
 entertained upon fhe ground, and yesterday at Bishop's Startford, in 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 51 
 
 Hartfordshire, the farmers of that part of the country witnessed a sim- 
 ilar experiment, attended with results precisely similar, and which gave 
 them the same satisfaction. 
 
 The following Testimonial was given by the Duke of Marlborough: 
 
 Tuesday, September gth, 185 1. 
 
 Having yesterday, witnessed the working of the American Reaping 
 Machine, patented by Mr. Hussey, and being requested to give my 
 opinion upon its execution, I state that it performed its work admira- 
 bly, laying the corn when cut very neatly for tying up, and leaving the 
 stubble very regular. MARLBOROUGH. 
 
 Following upon these various successes, an advertisement from the 
 proprietors of McCormick's Machine, appeared in the public papers, 
 as follows: 
 
 MR. M'CORMICK'S AMERICAN REAPER. 
 
 Public Challenge to Makers and Venders of Reaping Machines. — 
 We, the undersigned, agents for Mr. McCormick, having observed 
 sundry advertisements and circulars complaining of the decision of the 
 Jurors of the Great Exhibition of 185 1 in favor of Mr. McCormick's 
 Reaper, and of the reports given in the public journals of the trials 
 which led to such decision, do hereby give notice to Messrs. Wm. Dray 
 & Co., Messrs. Garrett & Son, Mr. O. Hussey, and all other makers and 
 venders of Reaping Machines whatsoever, that M'CORMICK'S 
 REAPER will be tried at the Cleveland Society's Show at Marton, 
 Middlesboro, near Stockton-on-Tees, on the 25th inst., and publicly 
 CHALLENGE them or any of them, to meet us there, with their 
 machines, for the purpose of a comparative trial of the respective 
 merits of each, to be determined by the Chairman and Council of the 
 Cleveland Society, or by such Judge or Judges as the said Society may 
 appoint. BURGP3SS & KEY, 103, Newgate-street, London. 
 
 The Challenge was immediately accepted. 
 
 MR. HUSSEY'S AMERICAN REAPER. 
 
 " In answer to an advertisement which appeared in the Times of 
 the i8th, from Messrs. Burgess & Key, giving us a PUBLIC CHAL- 
 LENGE, to a TRIAL of the AMERICAN REAPING MACHINES, 
 we hereby announce that we shall willingly ACCEPT the SAME, and 
 on the 25th inst., we shall be prepared at the Cleveland Society's Show, 
 Marton, Middlesborough, near Stockton-on-Tees, to prove to the 
 Agricultural World, the superiority of HUSSEY'S REAPER, for gen- 
 eral farming purposes. We stipulate, however, that the Machines shall 
 be tested, not only on a particular patch of good upstanding grain, where 
 they might, perhaps, prove equal, but on an average variety of condi- 
 tion, as to short and laid corn, &c., such as the farmer vyill usually meet 
 with. Its capabilities for cutting green crops, such as clover, &c., shall 
 also be proved. It must be evident to the Farming Public, that the 
 Reaping Machine which will cut a crop of the greatest variety and 
 
62 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 difference of condition must possess the greatest merit. WM. DRAY 
 & CO., Agricultural Warehouse, Swan-Lane, London Bridge. 
 
 Accordingly the matter was arranged, and the following gentlemen 
 were called upon to act as jurors: 
 
 Henry Stephen Thompson, Esq., of Moat Hall, Forema?i; Mr. Wm. 
 Lister of Dunsa Bank; Mr. Jno, Booth of Killerby; Mr. John Parring- 
 ton, of Brancepeth; Mr. Wm. Wetherell, of Kirkbridge, Darlington; 
 Mr. Rob't Hymers, of Marton; Mr. Christopher Cobson, Linthorpe; 
 Mr Rob't Fawcitt, of Ormsby; Mr. Joseph Parrington, of Cross Beck; 
 Mr. John Outhwaite, of Bainesse; Mr. Geo. Reed, Hutton Lowcross; 
 Mr. Thomas Phillips, of Helmsley, and Mr. Thomas Outhwaite, of 
 Bainesse. 
 
 The following were the conditions to be submitted by the repre- 
 sentatives of the respective machines: 
 
 " The machines to be tried on wheat and barley in such order, and 
 for such lengths of time, as the jurymen may direct. The jury to have 
 full power to use any means they deem advisable, in order to put the 
 machines to the severest trial. The jury in deciding on the merits of 
 the two machines; to take into their consideration: 
 
 1st. Which of the two cuts corn in the best manner. 
 
 2d. " " causes the least waste 
 
 3d. " " does the most work in a given time. 
 
 4th. " " leaves the corn in the best order for gathering 
 
 and binding. 
 
 5th. " " is the best adapted for the ridge and furrow. 
 
 6th. " " is the least liable to get out of order. 
 
 7th. " " at first cost is least price. 
 
 8th. " " requires the least amount of horse labor. 
 
 9th. " " which requires the least amount of manual 
 
 labor. 
 
 As no report was made of the trial on the first day, the following 
 may be relied upon: 
 
 Fro?n the Gateshead Observer — September 2'jth, 185 1. 
 
 It was curious to see on the soil of a Cleveland Farm, two imple- 
 ments of agriculture lying side by side in rivalry, respectively marked 
 — " M'Cormick, inventor, Chicago, Illinois," — " Hussey, inventor, Bal- 
 timore, Maryland " — America competing with America, on English soil. 
 
 Mr. Hussey led off. An attempt was made to keep back the eager 
 crowd; but their curiosity was irrepressible — they flocked in upon the 
 machine so that the experiment could not be properly performed, nor 
 could the jury duly discharge their duties.— P. C. Thompson did his 
 very best — he was all but everywhere at once; but what avails a police- 
 force, 07ie strong, against a concourse of Yorkshire yeomanry and 
 clowns? It was requisite that he should have recruits; and a body of 
 self-elected "specials" came to his aid, who succeeded in procuring 
 approach to a clear course. Mr. Hussey then took his seat anew, 
 and his machine cut down a breadth of wheat from end to end of the 
 field. It seemed to us to do its work neatly and well. The wheat was 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 53 
 
 cle\'erly delivered from the teeth of the reaper, and handed over to the 
 binders by the rake. 
 
 [ To William Dray and Company. ] 
 
 Stockton-on-Tees, September 27th, 185 1. 
 Sir, — Having been in communication with you relative to the trial 
 of your Reaper against M'Cormick's, and feeling deeply interested in 
 the introduction of the new Implement into this district, particularly 
 one of so much importance as a Reaping Machine, I think it is not 
 probably out of place in me if I give you the result of my observations 
 during the two trials which have taken place. From the fact that 
 M'Cormick's Machine obtained the prize at the Great Exhibition 
 (though I do not pin* my faith upon awards made by Agricultural and 
 other societies,) the letter of Mr. Pusey's, in the Royal Agriadtural 
 Society s Journal, the various newspaper reports, &c.. &c.; it was natural 
 for me to be predisposed in favor of M'Cormick's Machine; indeed 
 Mr. M. had a prestage in his favor, which of course operated against 
 the " Little Hussey." Previous to starting, at Marton, on Thursday,, 
 the gentlemen representing M'Cormick's machine expressed them- 
 selves desirous of testing the machines early in the morning when the 
 dew was on, believing that their machine would cut the grain under 
 such circumstances, and that yours would not. Well, on Thursday we 
 had a deluge rain, the surface of the land was very soft, and the corn 
 very wet. Everybody there was astonished to see your machine 
 brought up the field at a trot, cutting its way to the admiration of all 
 present; it not only cut to the leaning corn, but it cut cross over the 
 corn leaning to the left of the postillion, (I presume I must call him.) 
 McCormick's machine then attonpted to start (he made two or three 
 attempts) but the attendant confessed it was impossible to do so. 
 That there might be no mistake about it, your representatives pro- 
 posed that their machines should go up again; the jury said " No! we 
 are satisfied that your machine can cut it under the present circum- 
 stances," and so ended Thursday's trial. 
 
 Fro7n the Gate si le ad Observer, October 4. 
 
 We left the members and friends of this society, on Friday, the 
 26th ult., on the Show-ground at Middlesbrough, immersed in rain. 
 The scene now shifta to the Townhall — where, in a handsome and 
 spacious apartment, we find them assembled in the evening, to dinner, 
 to the number of 150, with the Earl of Zetland in the Chair, and in 
 the vice-chair Mr. John Vaughan, of the firm of Bolckow & Vaughan, 
 iron-masters and manufacturers. His lordship was supported by the 
 Rev. W. F. Wharton, of Birimngham, and Messrs. J. T. Wharton, 
 Henry Pease, G. D. Trotter, Isaac Wilson, George Coates, J. W. Pease, 
 George Reade, John Pierson, &c.; and the vice-chair by Messrs. C. 
 Dryden, W. Fallows, R. Chilton, &c. In the body of the hall were 
 the leading inhabitants of the town and neighborhood; also, Mr. 
 Burgess and Mr. Samuelson (who had come to the meeting with Mr. 
 
54 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 McCormick's reaping machine), Mr. Hussey, the inventor of the 
 reaper which bears his name, and Mr. Pierce and Mr. Stevens (on the 
 part of Messrs. Dray & Co., Agents for Mr. Hussey.) . 
 
 On the removal of the cloth, the noble Chairman — (behind whose 
 seat was inscribed on the wall in conspicuous characters, " Success to 
 the Cleveland Agricultural Society — Eighteenth Anniversary " — gave 
 the customary loyal toasts, and took occasion to observe, that had it 
 not been for the Exhibition of Industry, projected by Prince Albert, 
 the *' Reaping Machine," from w^hich he anticipated great benefits to 
 agriculture, would not have been introduced into this country. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 The Earl of Zetland again referred to the reaping machine. Such 
 an aid to agriculture, his lordship observed, was, needed in Cleveland 
 and elsewhere. 
 
 Mr. J. T. Wharton, of Skelton Castle, said he had never witnessed 
 so much enthusiasm in an agricultural district as was displayed in con- 
 nection with the reaping machine. Had the day been fine the num- 
 ber of spectators present yesterday (Thursday) would have been at 
 *least fourfold what it was. Bad as the weather was, not only was 
 there a large muster of members of the society, but 803 persons, many 
 of them from a considerable distance paid sixpence each for admis- 
 sion to the ground. — The trial of the rival machines was, unfortunately, 
 so short, and conducted under such adverse circumstances, that it was 
 impossible to pronounce any opinion as to their relative merits; but 
 what he saw of Hussey 's was as satisfactory as he could expect. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. George Reade, of Hutton Lowcross, said, had it not been for 
 the boisterous weather, the receipts of the society at Ormesby and 
 Middlesbrough would have been marvellous. As it was, there was a 
 large assemblage to witness the trial of the American reaping ma- 
 chines, and they were regarded with an anxious desire that they might 
 succeed. Indeed, let any ingenious mechanic — he cared not whether 
 he was English, Scotch, Irish, American, or German — come before a 
 jury of the farmers of Cleveland with an implement or machine for 
 the improvement of Agriculture, and it would be judged with candor, 
 impartiality and uprightness, and the inventor should go home satis- 
 fied that he had experienced fair play. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Isaac Wilson proposed the health of "The Strangers." To 
 those gentlemen the members were greatly indebted for their attend- 
 ance. Had the weather permitted, they would all have experienced 
 much pleasure from an inspection of the celebrated reaping machines 
 in action, and the ingenious draining plough of Mr. Fowler, which did 
 him very much credit. (The toast was drank with musical honors.) 
 
 Mr. Pierce, the representative of Dray & Co.. being called upon to 
 respond, rose and said, bad as the weather had been, he had been de- 
 lighted with his visit to Middlesbrough. The kindness of the inhab- 
 itants soon made him no stranger. He was not four and twenty hours 
 in the place before he fraternized with the whole parish. (Laughter.) 
 He rejoiced that Mr. Hussey's reaping machine was now in the hands 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 55 
 
 of a jury of Cleveland farmers. It would have a fair, honest, impar- 
 tial trial; and what more could an Englishman desire. (Applause.) 
 He thanked the company for the honor which they had conferred upon 
 their visitors from a distance, and wished continued 'success to their 
 flourishing society. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Hussey was next called upon, and said that he had for many 
 years been building machines in America. If he had had the least 
 idea of the interest which England would take in the reaping of crops 
 by machinery, it would have been a difficult thing to keep him on the 
 other side of the Atlantic; and he knew not, now, after the reception 
 which he had met with, how he should ever get home again. (Ap- 
 plause and lairghter.) 
 
 Mr. Steevens, Dray & Co.'s engineer, was also called upon to rise, 
 and stated that his employers had purchased Mr. Hussey's machine 
 because they saw it to be the best, and they would meet every com- 
 petitor in the three kingdoms, fearless of the result. (Cheers.) 
 
 [It should be stated that Messrs. Fowler, Burgess, Samuelson,* &c., 
 had by this time left the hall, and therefore could not be called upon.] 
 
 Mr. Parrington, having read the award, announced that a second 
 trial of McCormick's and Hussey's reaping machines would be made, 
 if the weather w-ere favorable, on the following morning (Saturday), 
 at 9 o'clock, at Mr. Fawcitt's farm. — The jury, appointed by the com- 
 mittee, would give no opinion on the trial of the previous day (Thurs- 
 day.) That would go for nothing. They would devote the whole of 
 next day, if necessary, to a full, fair, and satisfactory trial of the two 
 machines. (Applause.) 
 
 On Saturday morning, the weather w^as so far favorable that there 
 was no rain. The trial, therefore, took place. There was a numerous 
 gathering of land-owners, farmers, laborers, &c., but not so crowded a 
 muster as to obstruct the experiment. 
 
 The foreman of the jury, Mr. Thompson, being unavoidably absent, 
 his place was supplied by the Rev. W. F. Wharton, of Birmingham. 
 Messrs. Lister, Outhwaite, (J. and T. P.) Booth, Wetherell, Phillips, 
 and Dobson, were also absent. Their places were filled by Mr. Will- 
 iam Morley, Dishforth; Mr. Thomas Parrington, Marton; Mr. J. T. 
 Wharton, Shelton Castle; Mr. Wm. Hill, Staunton; Mr. Joseph Coul- 
 son, Sexhow; Mr. Joseph Harrison, White House; Mr. John Mason 
 Hopper, Marton. 
 
 The trial commenced in a level enclosure, adjoining the road from 
 Stockton and Middlesbrough to Ormesby Hall, (the residence of Sir 
 Wm. Pennyman, Bart.) The wheat was laid. We have seen a crop in 
 worse condition, but not often. The straw was damp and soft. The 
 soil was loamy and light, and the field free from w-et; it was to Mr. 
 Fawcitt's credit that he was able to place such a field at the service of 
 the society under the circumstances; still, the earth was in a state to 
 clog the w^heels of the reapers. Altogether, the test was a severe one 
 for the competitors. Mr. Samuelson, Mr. Burgess, and Mr. D. C. 
 
 *McCormick's agents. 
 
56 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 Mackenzie, (the son of an emigrant from Ivernesse) were in charge of 
 Mr. McCormick's Machine. The other was in the hands of the in- 
 ventor himself, Mr. Hussey, and of Mr. Pierce and Mr. Steevens (who 
 represented the agents, Messrs. Dray & Co.) 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Wharton, (the jury, competitors, &c. having gath- 
 ered round him on the field, on Saturday morning,) announced that, 
 after the lapse of an hour, when the corn would be in such a condition 
 that Mr. Fawcitt, as he had just said, would, under ordinary circum- 
 stances, reap it himself, the trial would commence. 
 
 The question was, now, which of the two machines should begin. 
 A " toss " gave the chance to Mr. Pierce, and he requested Mr. Burgess 
 to lead off. 
 
 M'Cormick's machine then got into action, taking the crop in the 
 most favorable manner — that is, leaning toward the knife. Passing 
 along the field, (which was from two to three hundred yards in length,) 
 it cut down a breadth of little more than four feet. The corn being 
 laid, the flier, of course did not come into practical operation; nor was 
 it necessary that it should do so — the elements having already done 
 its work. The corn was well cut — the stubble a little too high. 
 
 Another breadth or two having been cut, Hussey's machine 
 followed, and cut some breadths — somewhat wider than M'Cormick's, 
 and closer to the ground. 
 
 Mackenzie, when we pointed out the shorter stubble of his rival, 
 admitted the fact, but said there would be no difficulty — not the 
 slightest — in bringing Mr. M'Cormick's knife nearer to the ground. 
 In America, however, where the straw is comparatively of little or no 
 value, the stubble is no object, and there are some advantages in cut- 
 ting high. 
 
 A backer of M'Cormick's machine (and many bets have been laid 
 on the two machines) urged that Hussey's would spoil clover when 
 going amdng wheat. The reply was, that Hussey's knife could be 
 raised or depressed at pleasure. 
 
 The next test was cutting the crop across ridge and furrow, so that 
 the corn was lying neither to nor from the knife, but sidewise. Both 
 the machines cut the corn under these circumstances — Hussey's the 
 cleaner of the two. 
 
 The jury then required the experiment to be made along the field, 
 with the corn lying from the knife. 
 
 Mr. Hussey consented, and the machine succeeded in cutting the 
 corn — leaving a tolerabie stubble, but not so short and regular as 
 before. 
 
 McCormick's machine was then tried, and failed. As it scoured 
 over the corn, making sad havock, there were loud cries of "Stop! stop! 
 you're wasting it!" 
 
 Barley was next cut, with much the same result. In this case, Mr. 
 Hussey adjusted his platform for discharging the corn at the side. 
 
 The binders being summoned before the jury, and asked which of 
 the two machines they preferred, so far as their particular department 
 was concerned — decided, 4 for M'Cormick's, 6 for Hussey's. 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 57 
 
 Clover was now to be tried, but at this stage of the proceedings we 
 left the field. Clover-cutting, we should state, formed no part of the 
 competition. The agreement merely refers to wheat and barley. 
 M'Cormick's machine is not intended for clover-cutting; but some of 
 the land owners and farmers were anxious to see clover cut by Hus- 
 sey's machine. Mr. Thompson, we understand, had requested his 
 proxy to have the experiment made. We were told on the ground 
 that the machine had already been tried on clover at Newport, near 
 Middlesbrough, and "cut it well: — If the weather had been dry, it 
 would have cut it beautifully." 
 
 It was pleasant to mark the anxiety and watchfulness of the gentle- 
 men in charge of the two machines. Mr. M'Cormick suffered no loss 
 from his absence, he was so admirably represented; and in Messrs. 
 Pierce and Steevens, Dray & Co. had invaluable agents — on the Thurs- 
 day in particular, when a storm, which ravaged land and sea, could not 
 deter them or Mr. Hussey, from practically attesting the reaper's 
 prowess in the field. The trial, throughout, was conducted with a 
 fidelity to self which would not throw a point away, and a courtesy to 
 rivals which should ever mark honorable competition. 
 
 \^Fro}n a Correspondent.^^ 
 
 Stockton, Monday, September 29. — A report reached me, after I 
 left the farm, that Hussey's machine cut the barley very much better 
 than M'Cormick's. It came to me however, through parties who 
 might fairly be suspected of a bias, and therefore I kept my judgment 
 in suspense until I could obtain information on which I could more 
 implicitly rely. This I have now got. I have been to the farm again 
 to-day, and made inquiries of persons who saw the completion of the 
 trial. M'Cormick's machine did not cut the barley so well as Hussey's. 
 It cut it much too high; and as the crop was very much laid, the heads 
 only, in many cases were cut off. We had Hussey's machine in oper- 
 ation to-day, both on barley and wheat, and made better work than 
 on Saturday. Mr. Fawcitt worked it with the greatest ease. I think 
 he would soon beat the inventor himself. Even I, townsman as I am, 
 made fair work; and in an hour or two's practice, I would engage to 
 cut a crop in a manner not to be found fault with. You may safely 
 say that any ordinary workman about a farm would be able to manage 
 the machine; and when I say this of Hussey's, it is also true of M'Cor- 
 mick's. The one may be a better machine than the other, but the 
 merits of either of them may be brought into practical action by a la- 
 borer of average intelligence and skill. It is the opinion of farmers 
 and others with whom I have conversed, that the saving per acre, by 
 the use of Hussey's machine, would be about 5s. 
 
 At the close of the contest on Saturday, the knives of the two ma- 
 chines were placed in the hands of Mr. Robinson, engineer to Mr. 
 Bellerby, of York, that he might report thereon, and on the machinery 
 generally, to the Jury. 
 
 Wednesday, October i. — The Marquis of Londonderry, and several 
 
58 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 other gentlemen, hav'e visited Mr. Fawcitt's farm, to see the machine 
 at work. 
 
 The laurels so recently placed upon the brow of Mr. M'Cormick, 
 have been plucked off — not wholly, but in great part — by his fellow 
 countryman, Mr. Hussey. 
 
 We would enlarge upon this theme, but our report has left us little 
 room. We would only say, that while the farmers of Cleveland, and 
 of the Island generally, are turning their attention to agricultural im- 
 provement—by reaping machines, draining ploughs, and steam ploughs 
 — we would say to them, in the words of Mr. Hussey to the Cleve- 
 land horse-jockey, when his machine was ready for its work — " Now, 
 
 THEN, GO ahead!" 
 
 REPORT OF THE JURY. 
 
 " The Jury regret exceedingly the most unfavorable state of the 
 weather on the days of trial, (a perfect hurricane raging during the 
 whole of the first day,) and their consequent inability to make so full 
 and satisfactory a trial as they could have wished. 
 
 "The Machines were tested on a crop of Wheat, computed at 25 
 bushels per acre, very short in the Straw, and if possible, more laid 
 than the Wheat. 
 
 " The Jury, taking the different points submitted to their consider- 
 ation, in the order as mentioned: — 
 
 "I. — Their unanimous opinion, that Mr. Hussey's Machine, as ex- 
 hibited by Messrs. Wm. Dray & Co., cut the corn in the best manner, 
 especially across ridge and furrow, and when the machine was work- 
 ing in the direction of the corn laid. 
 
 " 2. — By a majority of eleven to one, that Mr. Hussey's Machine 
 caused the least waste. 
 
 " 3. — Taking the breadth of the two machines into consideration, 
 that of Mr. Hussey did most work. 
 
 "4. — That Mr. Hussey's Machine leaves the cut corn in the best 
 order for gathering and binding. This question was submitted to the 
 laborers employed on the occasion, and decided by them, as above, by 
 a majority of 6 to 4. 
 
 " 5. — Their unanimous opinion that Mr. Hussey's Machine is best 
 adapted for ridge and furrow. 
 
 " 6. — This question was referred by the Jury to Mr. Robinson, fore- 
 man to Messrs. Bellerby, of York, a practical Mechanic of acknowl- 
 edged ability, whose report is appended below. 
 
 " 7. — That Mr. Hussey's Machine at first cost is less price. 
 
 "8,9. — The Jury decline to express a decided opinion on these 
 points in consequence of the state of the weather. 
 
 " The trials took place on the farm of Robert Fawcitt, of Ormsby, 
 near Marlbro'-on-Tees, \vh6 in the most liberal and disinterested spirit 
 allowed his crops to be trodden down and damaged to a very great 
 extent, especially on the 25th, when in spite of the storm an immense 
 crowd assembled to witness the trials. 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 59 
 
 "The Jury cannot conclude their Report, without expressing the 
 great pleasure they have derived from seeing two Machines brought 
 into competition, that were able to do such very good work, and also 
 at witnessing the friendly, straightforward, and honorable way in 
 which the Exhibitors of the respective Machines met on this occasion. 
 Signed on behalf of the Jury, 
 
 W. F. WHARTON, Foreman. 
 
 Mr. Robinson s Report on Question 6. 
 
 Having carefully examined both machines, and given the subject 
 due consideration, I am of opinion that M'Cormick's Reaping Ma- 
 chine, as at present made, is most liable to get out of order. 
 
 (Signed,) THOMAS ROBINSON. 
 
 York, loth September, 1851. 
 
 \^Froni the London Mercantile Jonrnal.^ 
 
 The Great Exhibition and Transatlantic Superiority over 
 European Ingenuity — American Reaping Machines. — The close of 
 the Crystal Palace has given rise to many panegyrics, and we would 
 not for one moment detract from its merits; it has been deservedly 
 the admiration of the world, and visited by thousands of its inhabit- 
 ants. Brought into life by the most eminent men, and supported by 
 royalty; the means taken were such as no private individual could 
 have accomplished; every exertion was used to obtain the choicest 
 relics that the earth could produce; almost every country vied in ex- 
 hibiting the arts and treasures of its products and manufactures, and 
 were with one exception, considered eminently successful. The United 
 States of America, however, was thought to be deficient, and in one 
 or two cases some rather strong and even coarse remarks were indulged 
 in. But what are the results? France can boast of the richness of 
 its silks and artificial manufactures, and England of its machinery; but 
 we find that our own newspapers are filled with admiration at the in- 
 ventions of Brother Jonathan. We shall only slightly touch upon the 
 sensation produced by the splendid performance of the American 
 yacht, and the dexterity displayed in the lock-picking, which was previ- 
 ously deemed impracticable. But it may be said that these are trifling 
 matters in a national point of view; still, facts have been elicited by 
 these apparent trifling incidents, for we find that the superior build of 
 the little American yacht involves a principle — it being now admitted 
 that in nautical matters the Americans are equal, if notsuperior, to other 
 nations in their construction of their merchant vessels, and also in the 
 equipment of their ships of war. On the land they are equally success- 
 ful; their reaping machines have astonished our agriculturists. We ex- 
 tract from the Gateshead Observer, and other local papers, the sur- 
 prising performances of Hussey's and M'Cormick's machines. Our 
 readers are aware that there are two rival parties competing their 
 powers on British ground, and without entering into the question as 
 to which of the two performed their work in the best manner, we copy 
 
60 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 the result of the trial. The Durham Advertiser states that the per- 
 formance took place at Middlesbro, and says: 
 
 " Few subjects have created a greater sensation in the agricultural 
 world than the recent introduction into the country of the reaping 
 machines of Mr. M'Cormick, and the subsequent appearance of a rival, 
 of no inferior description, in a similar implement from Mr. Hussey. 
 The interesting trial of the two in competition, intended to have taken 
 place on Thursday last, was postponed, in consequence of the torrents 
 of rain, until Saturday, when, under the superintendence of a very effi- 
 cient jury empanelled to decide the respective merits of the two imple- 
 ments, the contest came off. The compact form of Hussey's imple- 
 ment was in its favor, though from the notoriety of M'Cormick's at 
 Mr. Mechi's farm, the general preference was at first on his side. 
 M'Cormick's machine was first tried against the inclination of the corn, 
 and completed its portion in very good style, leaving the sheaves in 
 a handy manner at the side of the furrow. Hussey's completed a 
 similar breadth, but deposited the sheaves behind, and consequently 
 several binders were required to follow the machine to clearthe course 
 for cutting the next breadth, an imperfection, which, however, it was 
 understood could be easily remedied, and the back deliver replaced 
 by a side one. This breadth was closer cut than the one executed by 
 M'Cormick's reaper. The two were then tried across the ridge, where 
 Hussey's implement carried the palm, M'Cormick's leaving a very 
 considerable portion of the straw standing behind it; and the last trial 
 upon the wheat, in the direction of the lean of the wheat, Hussey's 
 machine did its work very fairly, while M'Cormick's was obliged to 
 be stopped in its course, after having taken the heads of the wheat, 
 but left the whole of the straw standing. At this time two opinions 
 did not exist among the company present — Hussey's being the favor- 
 ite. The trial was then carried to some barley, where Hussey's again 
 succeeded in obtaining public favor. The more compact form of 
 Hussey's implement, as well as the superiority of the clipping action 
 over the cutting action of M'Cormick's, entitle it to a greater share of 
 public favor, and as the advantages of a side delivery can be easily 
 applied to it, it will doubtless, becomethe more general in use amongst 
 the farmers. We cannot, however, but think that some mechanical 
 process might be substituted for raking the sheaf from the receiving 
 board, and this with a few other mechanical improvements, would, we 
 think, make Hussey's reaping machine a perfect, useful, and econom- 
 ical agricultural implement. The latter may be also advantageously 
 applied to the cutting of clover crops, which is quite out of the ques- 
 tion with the farmer. Another Correspondent on this subject says: — 
 " The jury did not on Saturday announce their decision, nor have they 
 yet made a report. Nineteen farmers out of twenty who witnessed 
 the trial were in favor of Hussey's machine." 
 
 The Gateshead Observer, remarks: — " The great Cleveland contest 
 between the two American, reaping machines, respectively invented 
 by Mr. M'Cormick, of Chicago, and Mr. Hussey, of Baltimore, origi- 
 nally appointed for Thursday, the 25th ult., frustrated, for a time by 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. HI 
 
 the deluge and hurricane of that disastrous day, came off on Satur- 
 day, the 27th. The trial was one of great severity, the crops ot 
 Wheat and Barley were laid, and the straw damp and soft. The 
 laurels so recently placed upon the brow of Mr. M'Cormick have been 
 plucked off — not wholly, but in great part — by his fellow countryman, 
 Mr. Hussey. Both the machines proved their ability to do good work, 
 but Mr. Hussey's attested its superiority; and the English farmer has 
 now seen, thanks to Prince Albert and the Exhibition of Works of 
 Industry, that his corn and grasses, hitherto slowly and laboriously 
 reaped with the sickle and the scythe, may now be plained off the 
 land, in five feet breadth, as rapidly as a horse can trot." 
 
 " A trial has taken place before the Cleveland Agricultural Society 
 of the respective merits of M'Cormick's and Hussey's American Reap- 
 ing Machines, and the report of the jury of practical men, appointed 
 by the consent of both parties to decide the question of merit is favor- 
 able to the latter Implement. This Decision throws considerable 
 
 DOUBT UPON THE JUSTICE OF THE AWARD OF A GREAT MEDAL AT THE 
 
 EXHIBITION TO M'Cormick's." — Loudon Times, Oct. 7. 
 
 Following upon its success at Cleveland, the proprietors were in- 
 vited to exhibit the Machine at the Barnard Castle Agricultural 
 Society, Lord Harry Vane, president. 
 
 Barnard Castle, Oct. 8, 185 1. 
 
 The undersigned President, Vice Presidents, and members of the 
 Barnard Castle Agricultural Society and others who have witnessed the 
 working of the American Reaping Machine, invented by Mr. Hussey, 
 
 do CERTIFY their UNQUALIFIED APPROVAL OF ITS OPERATIONS AND 
 ENTIRE SUCCESS. 
 
 LORD HARRY VANE, President. 
 W. F. WHARTON, Vice President. 
 
 John Mitchell, V. P., Forcett Hall, Yorkshire, Esq. 
 
 J. S. Edgar, M. D., Barnard Castle, Esq. 
 
 John Dickonson Holmes, Barnard Castle, Solicitor. 
 
 George P. Harrison, Forcett, Yorkshire, Esq., P'armer. 
 
 Edward Scaith, Keverston, near Darlington, Esq., Farmer, and 
 Assistant Draining Commissioner. 
 
 Thomas Robinson, Hutton Hall, near Richmond, Yorkshire, Esq., 
 Farmer. 
 
 Richard Kay, Forcett Valley, near Darlington, Esq., Farmer. 
 
 William Harrison, Greta Bridge, Yorkshire, Esq., Farmer. 
 
 Thomas Carter, Scales, near Richmond, Esq., Farmer. 
 
 Jno. Whitfield, London, Esq. 
 
 Rev. Thomas Boys Croome, Scotland. 
 
 William Watson, Junr., Barnard Castle, Solicitor. 
 
 J. R. Monkhouse, Barnard Castle, Manufacturer. 
 
 Samuel Nelson, of Scaife House, near Staindrop, Durham, Esq., 
 Farmer. 
 
 William Thompson, Lanehead, near Ovington, Yorkshire, Esq., 
 Farmer. 
 
62 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 John Ethwaite, Bainesse, near Catterick, Yorkshire, Farmer. 
 
 Rev. George Dugard, Barnard Castle, Incumbent of Yorkshire, 
 Farmer. 
 
 WILLIAM WATSON, Secretary of the Barnard Agricultural 
 Association. 
 
 From the Darlifigton a?id Stockton, England, Times, Oct. 1 1. 
 
 Barnard Castle Agricultural Society. 
 
 Air. Hiisscys Rcapuig Machine. 
 
 Great interest was excited in Barnardcastle and its neighborhood 
 on Tuesday last, by the announcement that Mr. Hussey's reaping ma- 
 chine would be exhibited at the forthcoming meeting of the Barnard- 
 castle Agricultural Society; and that a trial of its powers would be 
 made previous to the meeting. Accordingly, on Tuesday last, the 
 machine was brought into operation in a field of barley, belonging to 
 Mr. George White, of Stainton, near Barnardcastle, which it cut 
 admirably well. The Rev. W. F. Wharton, and other gentlemen in 
 the vicinity, besides a vast number of farmers, were present. The 
 Judges on the occasion were H. S. Thompson, Esq. of Moat Hall, 
 (one of the Agricultural Jury of the Great Exhibition), W. Lister, 
 Esq., of Dunsa Bank; and T. Robinson, Esq., of Hutton. Luncheon 
 was provided for a large party in an out-building near the scene of 
 the experiments, and it is a fact worthy of notice, that after dinner, 
 Mr. Thompson proposed the health of Mr. Hussey (who was present) 
 with great fervour, and spoke of the disadvantages under which Mr, 
 Hussey's Machine had labored when tried against M'Cormick's for the 
 Great Exhibition Medal; Mr. Hussey not being in the country at that 
 time, and no one being present who understood the adjusting or work- 
 ing of the implement. Mr. Thompson said he was now so thoroughly 
 satisfied of its great merits, that he would do his best to get a medal 
 awarded to it. After luncheon, the machine was taken to the grounds 
 of Mr. Adamson, and tried upon a field of oats, which were so laid as 
 to form a very severe test to the machine, but it nevertheless was suc- 
 cessful there also. The party retired greatly pleased with it, and some 
 of the most wary agriculturists ordered machines upon the ground. — On 
 Wednesday morning, a large assemblage of agriculturists met on the 
 farm of Mr. F. Atkinson, Westwood, Startforth, to see the machine cut 
 a field of wheat, and there again the experiment yielded all that 
 even its inventor could desire. We understand that a large number 
 of orders were given for machines by the farmers present, which is 
 perhaps the very best test of their views in the matter. The general 
 impression seemed to be that it would prove of incalculable value to 
 the agricultural interest. 
 
 At about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, a large party sat down to a 
 sumptuous dinner at the King's Head Inn. Lord Harry Vane, pre- 
 sided, and the Rev. W. F. Wharton occupied the vice-chair. After 
 dinner the usual loyal toasts having been proposed, the vice chair pro- 
 posed the health of Mr. Hussey; that gentleman, he said, had con- 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 63 
 
 tributed to their gratification and interest in bringing his invention 
 there for trial; the result of that trial had exceeded everything they 
 could have previously imagined or hoped; and therefore he begged 
 they would excuse him for proposing this health so early, as Mr. Hus- 
 sey and his agent's representative Mr Pierce, had to leave by the first 
 train from Darlington, which they had then but sufficient time to 
 reach. He proposed the healths of Mr. Hussey and of the enterpris- 
 ing firm, Messrs. Dray & Co., who had undertaken to bring that ma- 
 chine into the British market. The toast was drank with honors. Mr. 
 Hussey briefly returned thanks. 
 
 After some further proceedings, the Vice-Chairman proposed the 
 health of the President. Lord Harry Vane responded. 
 
 The healths of the Vice-Presidents were proposed. Mr. Mitchell 
 briefly responded. Mr. Wharton in acknowledging the toast, took the 
 opportunity of again bringing before the meeting the merits of the inven- 
 tion which had been the object of that day's attraction. It had been 
 most unfortunate that when the trial took place for the prize of the 
 great exhibition. Mr. Hussey had not arrived in this country — nobody 
 knew how it was managed, whilst M'Cormick's was properly attended 
 to. Mr. Hussey''^ machine did no work, and Mr. M'Cormick took the 
 medal. No sooner did Mr. Hussey arrive than he prayed for a further 
 trial, but the Jury could not grant it. All difficulty was removed by 
 Mr. M'Cormick throwing down the gauntlet. The trial came off in 
 Cleveland — the result was clear and satisfactory in favor of Mr. Hus- 
 sey's machine as decidedly superior. Mr. Thompson, of Moat Hall, 
 one of the Great Exhibition Jury, was also one of the Judges in Cleve- 
 land, and was so satisfied on the subject that he left, determined to 
 urge for a medal for Mr. Hussey. It must be a source of pleasure to 
 all, to find that justice was thus about to be done to a worthy, modest 
 and unassuming man. 
 
 From the Darlington and Stockton Times, October nth, 185 1. 
 The Re.aping Machines at Barnardcastle. 
 To the Editor of the Darlington and Stockton Times. 
 
 Sir: — I beg to trouble you with a few particulars of Mr. Hussey's 
 American Reaping Machine, which I yesterday saw working in a field 
 near Barnardcastle. I am not a farmer, and oi" course cannot be thor- 
 oughly an fait 2it describing an agricultural implement, nor am I suf- 
 ficiently versed in mechanics to explain to you the construction of the 
 machine in all its details, but of the result I can speak, and that with 
 confidence. 
 
 Drawn by two horses, a man seated on the near side horse as driv- 
 er, this wonderful implement was drawn with perfect ease, at more 
 than the rate of three miles an hour, round and round a field, partly in 
 wheat and partly in barley, cutting a breadth of corn in its progress 
 with a regularity and evenness that was surprising. No straggling 
 stalks of corn were left — none of the slovenly irregular work too often 
 seen where manual labor is employed, was to be discovered; on the 
 
64 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 contrary, the field after shearing, looked nearly as smooth and even 
 as a kitchen floor or turnpike road. The farmer has now no longer oc- 
 casion to be behind the reapers, dinning in their years, "shear low,' — 
 " now do shear low; ' for this machine, with a very simple adjustment, 
 will cut the corn as low as he can possibly require. A seat on the 
 machine is provided for a man, who with a large rake, and with mo- 
 tion resembling the pushing of a punt, removes the corn from the 
 machine as it is cut, and leaves it for the binders to put together ig, 
 sheafs. 
 
 The assistance of two men and two horses are thus all that is re- 
 quired to draw and to guide this wonderful sickle — and so manned, it 
 will cut with the ease and regularity I have described, from perhaps 
 10 to 12 acres in the working day. Nor as far as I could see, or learn 
 from the observation of others, does there appear to be any drawback 
 against its general adoption. Its price (£21) is not exorbitant — its 
 construction is not so complex as to cause a fear of frequent repairs 
 being required; men of the common run of agricultural laborers are 
 quite competent to go with it, and the work of drawing it is not dis- 
 tressing to the horses. Neither does the nature of the ground appear 
 to be much an object, for it travelled as well over ridge and furrow 
 as it did upon a level. 
 
 Nothing could be more unanimous, than the approval of which the 
 machine met with from all who saw its work, and I was informed that 
 nine machines were ordered on the ground. Among the purchasers 
 was the Duke of Cleveland, who with Lord Harry Vane, was present, 
 and examined its working and construction minutely. The curiosity 
 excited by the machine was great, and an immense number of people 
 visited the ground during the two days. — Noblemen and gentlemen, 
 J farmers and farm laborers, tradesmen and mechanics, men and wo- 
 
 I men, flocked to seen the implement, which from the other side of the 
 
 Atlantic has come to effect so important a revolution in the labor of 
 the harvest field, and all were agreed that Brother Jonathan, though 
 still a young man, had some clever notions in his head, and that John 
 Bull, in the case of the reaping machine, would not be above taking 
 advantage of his intelligence. I am, &c. 
 
 A. B. 
 
 [^From the London Daily News.'\ 
 Hussey's Reaping Machine — Trial before Prince Albert. 
 
 The celebrated battle of the Ganges hardly excited more interest 
 in the railway world than the battle of the Reaping machines has 
 lately created in the agricultural world, nor is the result perhaps 
 very much less important in the latter case than in the former. 
 
 Of the recent inventions for diminishing the cost of production, 
 the most remarkable are undoubtedly the Reaping machines of Messrs. 
 Hussey and M'Cormick. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call 
 them importations than inventions, since both have been in use for 
 a considerable time in America; and amongst the benefits arising 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 55. 
 
 from the Exhibition, it is certainly not the least that it has introduced 
 to the agriculturist of Great Britain implements of the highest practical 
 utility, which might otherwise have remained forever exclusively in the 
 hands of their brethren across the Atlantic. It will be remembered 
 that a trial of the two rival machines took place last summer, at Mr. 
 Mechi's model farm in Essex, having been directed by the royal 
 commissioners, with the view of determining the comparative merits 
 of the two instruments, whose patentees were competitors for the 
 forthcoming medal prizes. At that time Mr. Hussey, the American 
 inventor of the machine called after his name, had not arrived in the 
 country. The weather too, was very unpropitious for the trial, notwith- 
 standing which a very large, number of gentlemen were present. 
 The machines were tried upon a field of wheat, and the result was 
 such as to convince all present, of the superiority, in every point 
 of view, of M'Cormick's machine ^ — a conviction which was subse- 
 quently confirmed, by the fact of the Exhibition medal being awarded 
 exclusively to the patentee of that machine. The tables however 
 were soon to be turned. Mr. Hussey arrived in England; a challenge 
 having been given by the agents of Mr. M'Cormick, it was accepted 
 by Mr, Hussey, and his English agent, Mr. Dray; and, after a fair 
 contest before the Cleveland Society, at Middelsbro', near Stockton- 
 on-Tees, on the 25th and 27th of Sept., a jury of twelve agriculturists 
 pronounced a verdict in favor of the unmedalled machine. They 
 decided that of the two machines, Hussey's had the preponderance 
 of advantages — that it cut corn in the best manner, caused the least 
 waste, did the most work in a given time, left the cut corn in the 
 best order for gathering and binding, was the best adapted for ridge 
 and furrow, was the least liable to get out of repair, and was the least 
 price at first cost. On the two other points submitted to them, 
 namely, which machine required the least amount of horse labor, 
 and which the least amount of manual labor, the jury declined to express 
 a decided opinion, in consequence of the state of the weather." 
 
 There have been many other trials of Hussey's machine in different 
 parts of the country, and the result has been so far uniformly satis- 
 factory. — Amongst these we have now to mention a very interesting 
 one which took place by appointment last Saturday, at Windsor, 
 in the presence of his Royal Highness, Prince Albert, originating 
 in a correspondence between General Wemyss, on behalf of the Prince, 
 and Messrs. Dray & Co. of Swan-lane, tne agents for Mr. Hussey. 
 The spot selected for the trial was behind the statue of George HI., 
 at the end of the Long Walk, fern — of which there is an abundance 
 in that locality — being the article on which the machine had to operate. 
 The Prince having from an early hour in the morning been engaged 
 in shooting in the vicinity of the statue, at half-past twelve resigned 
 his gun, and proceeded on horseback, in company with General Wemyss 
 and Col. Seymour, to the spot appointed for the trial of the machine. 
 Dismounting from his horse, his royal highness saluted briefly, and 
 gracefully the assembled company, and especially Mr. Hussey and 
 Mr. Dray. He then asked a few general questions respecting the 
 
66 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS 
 
 history of the machine, and observed, that as the ground selected 
 was very uneven (it was in fact remarkably so), the trial would 
 be a good one. After a brief delay, the gear being declared in order, 
 on went the machine, drawn by two strong horses, and heedless of ruts 
 and hillocks in its course, which was very rapid, bringing down every 
 thing it encountered cleanly and completely, including two or three 
 slices of turf at least a foot long, and more than an inch thick. 
 
 The performances of the machine were not confined to one single 
 course. A considerable amount of work was performed in the most 
 satisfactory manner, Mr. Hussey himself sitting on the box at the side, 
 and throwing aside what was cut down in the manner best adapted 
 for gathering and binding. Indeed the work was not confined to the 
 fern; a rabbit who was not accustomed to this species of interference 
 was started and cruelly lacerated before he had time to escape. 
 
 At the close of the trial, his royal highness gave a practical 
 proof of his favorable opinion by ordering two of the machines for 
 himself, one for Windsor and the other for Osborne. He then, after 
 expressing his gratification, rode back to the game-keepers and resumed 
 his gun. After he had left, the machine operated well upon some 
 rushes. 
 
 It may not be out of place to state here that Mr. Dray's explanation 
 of the failure of the Hussey machine at Tiptree Hall (Mr. Mechi's 
 farm), is that it was entirely owing to its not being properly managed. 
 On that occasion, he says, the person in charge of it was simply a porter 
 at the Exhibition, who, not understanding the matter, neglected to clear 
 away the wheat as it was cut down, in consequence of which the action 
 of the machine was unavoidably and fatally impeded. We witnessed 
 the result at Mr Mechi's, and certainly there was no such fault on 
 Saturday. The progress of the machine was notwithstanding the 
 unevenness of the ground, rapid and satisfactory; and it was stated 
 as a fact that on a level ground the horses used in drawing may trot, 
 not only without weakening or impeding the action of the knives, 
 but even with advantages, as by that means the cutting requires 
 increased precision and force. 
 
 The following is Prince Albert's certificate: 
 
 W'iNDSOR Castle, Nov. 13, 185 1. 
 
 Sir: — In answer to your letter addressed to Gen. Wemyss, I have 
 received the commands of his Royal Highness Prince Albert, to say, 
 that so far as he could judge of Mr. Hussey's Reaping Machine, 
 from its performance in the high fern at Windsor Park, his Royal 
 Highness is disposed to form a very favorable opinion of it, and has 
 ordered one* in consequence for the use of his own farm. His Royal 
 Highness can however give no opinion as to the relative merits of this 
 machine in comparison with those of others which he has not seen 
 at work. I have the honor to be sir, your ob"t serv't, 
 
 GREY. 
 
 *The Prince ordered two Machines, one for Windsor and one for Isle of Wight. 
 
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 67 
 
 From Maidstone & South Eastern Gazette, Oct. 21, '51. 
 
 WEST KENT AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY'S PLOUGHING 
 
 MATCH. 
 
 HUSSEY's AMERICAN REAPER. 
 
 A distinguishing feature at this society's meeting on Thursday, 
 the i6th inst., was an exhibition of the capabilities of the above 
 machine. The sesson of the year of course prevented a display 
 of its powers on anything in the shape of grain, indeed great difficulty 
 was found in procuring even a green crop on which to operate. 
 Undaunted by this fact, the inventor was determined to show to the 
 anxious hundreds assembled the extent of the advantages to be derived 
 from the use of his reaper. At two o'clock the machine was set 
 to work upon a field of clover, short and light (as may be supposed), 
 where its performance was effectual as it possibly could be, exciting 
 a considerable amount of surprise as well as gratification. It was 
 then taken to a piece of marsh land, where clumps of stout rushes 
 in many places were growing in thick masses, presenting the appear- 
 ance of stunted grain. The machine passed over this marsh, cutting 
 the rushes with the same facility as if it had been corn, leaving the 
 stubble about 4 inches long and very regular, giving also a good 
 representation of the manner in which the sheaves of wheat, &c. are 
 usually delivered. Both these operations, but especially the latter, 
 were considered severe contests of the capabilities of the machine. 
 Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the performance was 
 far beyond all reasonable expectations. It was a question whether 
 the excellent work of the 58 competing ploughs, or the extraordinary 
 novelty of Hussey's machine in operation, added most to the gratification 
 of the large assemblage of the leading agriculturists of Kent. 
 
 From the Kentish Gazette, Nov. 11, 185 1. 
 
 In addition to the interest naturally felt by all who live on and 
 by the soil in its proper cultivation, there was an unusual degree 
 of attraction in the fact that a reaping machine by Mr. Hussey, 
 (the celebrated American Machinist) would be tested upon 7 acres 
 of mustard adjoining the ploughing field. The reaping was com- 
 menced about twelve o'clock, and continued for a considerable period. 
 The crop of mustard was wet, and by no means calculated to favor 
 the experiment. It was however, after the machine was properly 
 arranged, cut down with great regularity; and at a speed equal to four 
 miles an hour it traversed the circuit of the field, hewing its way 
 through the mustard, quickly followed by a crowd of eager observers, 
 whose wondering gaze exhibited at once their astonishment and 
 admiration of its working. Occasionally the level of the cutters 
 were altered, so as to leave a greater or less length of stubble, which 
 evinced the accurate adjustment to which the machine could be 
 
68 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 brought. Some portion of it was taken to pieces, and the whole 
 of the arrangements shown, which the farmers present displayed 
 an eager anxiety to investigate, and many were the questions pro- 
 posed, and satisfactory answered by the talented inventor. 
 
 We should mention that the undulation of the land does not impede 
 its operations in the least — as it was well observed by a gentleman 
 present, that where a cart could travel there this machine could also 
 go, and complete its design. . No previous acquaintance with its prin- 
 ciple is necessary to be able to guide its operation, as was shown by 
 Mr. Neame, Jr. who mounted the platform and discharged the functions 
 appertaining to the party who removes the corn from the machine after 
 it is cut, with the greatest ease and precision. Indeed the most 
 unqualified approval was given by the gentlemen present, to the 
 applicability of the reaping machine to the purposes for which 
 it is designed. We have thus entered into minute particulars, because 
 this is the first opportunity we have had of witnessing the results 
 of such an experiment, attended as it was with every degree of satis- 
 faction. Lord Sondes gave an order for one of the machines, and 
 we understand that three or four orders were given in the course 
 of the day. 
 
 At the dinner which followed, the chairman gave " Sir John Tylden 
 and the visitors." 
 
 Sir John Tylden, as a member as well as a visitor, replied to the 
 toast, and in a jocular strain animadverted on the suffering of the 
 farmers of Faversham, who were determined, like a celebrated regi- 
 ment in the service, to " die hard." He alluded to the reaping machine 
 of Mr. Hussey, which he characterized in contradistinction to that 
 of Mr. M'Cormick's and all others, as the universal reaping machine, 
 of which he spoke in highly approving terms, and passed a warm 
 eulogium on its talented inventor, and the country he represented, 
 which in the space of 80 years had risen from a wilderness to her now 
 exalted position, and proud of her Anglo-Saxon blood. 
 
A REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Pamphlet of W. N. P. Fitzgerald, 
 
 "Counsel for Parties in the State of New York," 
 
 IN OPPOSITION TO THE EXTENSION OF THE PATENT 
 
 OF 
 
 OBKD MTJSSKY: 
 
 AND ALSO OF THE DEFENCE, OR EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF 
 
 SAID EXTENSION. 
 
 WITH A 
 
 NARRATIVE OR BRIEF HISTORY 
 
 OF 
 
 REAPING MACHINES, 
 
 AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS FOR PRIORITY OF 
 
 INVENTION: 
 
 AND AN APPENDIX. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 FROM THE PRESS OF MILLS & COX, 
 
 122 BALTIMORE STREET, 
 18S6. 
 
 Reprinted by the W. B. CON KEY COMPANY. 
 1897. 
 
REVIEW. 
 
 In reviewing these pamphlets — the one intended to defeat, and 
 the other in vindication of the rights of Obed Hussey — and which are 
 in fact the rights of every honest inventor in the coyntry, — as well 
 from the aspersions cast on his private character, and abounding in 
 this paper, as from the labored efforts by interested parties to deprive 
 an honest and hard working man of the just reward due to his genius 
 and talents, it is proper to say that we have no private or pecuniary 
 interest in any patent claim. Nor are we fee'd "counsel" or hired 
 agents — literally Lobby Lazvyefs, to get claims through Congress, right 
 or wrong. But we are farmers, who can appreciate, and know practi- 
 cally the great value of this invention to the Agricultural interests of 
 the country; and who desire to see the inventive talent of our country- 
 men fostered and encouraged by the General Government, and ade- 
 quately rewarded for its toil and privations. 
 
 As Farmers, we advocate the extension of this patent, and as 
 Farmers we have a right to be heard, being the class most directl}' 
 interested, next to the inventor himself; and fully believing that the 
 country — nay, the whole Agricultural world — is more indebted to Obed 
 Hussey than to any or all other inventors, in being the first to render 
 this implement of real practical value to the Farmer, and that the evi- 
 dence fully sustains this belief — that his invention has conferred the 
 most signal and lasting benefits on others, with a reward in no degree 
 adequate, to himself; that it is justly due to one who has proved him- 
 self a public benefactor both at home and aboad; and that in granting 
 the extension, it is strictly in accordance with an enlightened policy 
 of the Government, and will not injure the interests of the farmer, 
 or others, who have the slightest right to object or complain. 
 
 It is brought as a grave accusation against Obed Hussey, that he 
 was " ignorant," not " learned in the law," and as " familiar with the 
 rules and regulations of the Patent Office," as this " counsel " professes 
 to be. 
 
 Is it to be supposed that he could be? The man whose whole life 
 has been one of toil and hardship; though seeking to be useful to 
 others, and to make an honest living by industry and perseverance; as 
 well — and for years — on the pathless Ocean, in pursuit of the great 
 " Leviathan of the deep," to furnish the oil for the lawyers' midnight 
 lamp — " passing nine consecutive months of the year on the southern 
 ocean, and under the shadow of the main topsail, without even a sight 
 of terra firma" — as on the land, to aid in lightening the labors of his 
 fellow man, "who provides the staff of life. 
 
 71 
 
A REVIEW. 
 
 The fore-castle, not the Forum — the work-shop, and not the Uni- 
 versity, have been, we presume, the schools in which he was taught; 
 and doubtless his hands are more familiar with the harpoo7i, the ham- 
 mer and the chisel, than with the pen. For more than twenty y-ears — 
 indeed the prime of his life — he has devoted all the energies of his 
 mind to perfect and bring into use, this great labor-saving implement, 
 the Reaping and Mowing Machine. And if he has by so doing bene- 
 fitted others, it is certainly no more than right and fair that he should 
 receive a reward in return; — such as the laws of the land recognize as 
 " adequate reward." 
 
 We honestly believe that he is justly entitled to what he asks for; 
 and are willingt" without money and without price," to aid the deserv- 
 ing as far as our efforts and influence can avail in so laudable a cause. 
 
 In asking Congress for an extension of his Patent it is no more 
 than hundreds have asked before him; and have had granted to them, 
 for inventions of small comparative value in many cases, to the public. 
 If his is of great value to th.Q public, it certainly ought to be considered 
 of corresponding value to the invetitor. 
 
 We will endeavor to show that his invention has proved itself of 
 very great value to the Agricultural interests of the country. 
 
 As to the benefit of Reaping Machines to the farmer, and the just 
 or adequate rezvard to the inventor, we will give the opinion of one who 
 was not only disinterested, but fully understood both branches of the 
 subject;* he says: "In Agriculture, it is in my view, as important, as a 
 labor-saving device, as the spinning jenny and power loom in manu- 
 factures. It is one of those great and valuable inventions which com- 
 mence a new era in the progress of improvement, and whose beneficial 
 influence is felt in all coming time; and I do not hesitate to say that 
 the man whose genius produces a machine of so much value, should 
 make a large fortune out of it. It is not possible for him to obtain 
 during the whole existence of the term of his patent, a tenth part of 
 the value of the labor saved to the community by it in a single 
 year." 
 
 There are doubtless applications for extensions, and perhaps 
 granted too, in which the applicant has been amply rewarded; others 
 again, and it is believed by far the greater number, have been made 
 poorer instead of richer, by devoting their time and energies to intro- 
 duce useful implements and machinery. 
 
 The shrewd and designing, not the poor inventor, usually reap the 
 reward due to genius. Such are ever ready for the sake of gain, and 
 with a reasonable prospect of impunity, to invest their capital; often 
 realizing rr/z/'./'i'rrr/'//. profits out of the public — taking the bread out 
 of the mouth of the poor, but honest inventor, and frequently with 
 means too limited to protect his known and admitted rights; or if these 
 rights are acknowledged, the Capitalist usually retains the " lion's 
 share," and the poor inventor must be content nith a mere pittance, or 
 get nothing. • 
 
 We do not propose to follow the example of this "counsel " by ar- 
 
 *Hon. Edward Burke. 
 
A REVIEW. 73 
 
 guments on abstract principles and supposed cases, that have no sort 
 of analogy or bearing whatever on the subject; for he bases his argu- 
 ments on false premises — assuming as facts what never existed, except 
 in his own imagination. Nor is it necessary to review in detail the law 
 arguments of the learned " counsel "; though we expect to prove by the 
 lazu that he either does not himself understand it, or intentionally mis- 
 interprets its plain and obvious meaning. It is believed there are yet 
 some good lawyers on the floor of Congress, who are quite as 
 likely to interpret them aright as this gentleman; and who, when they 
 desire Law, know where to find it, and how properly to expound its 
 provisions. 
 
 Congress may require facts to enable it to act understandingly; 
 these have already been furnished, and are now on file in this case, 
 fully sufficient to convince and satisfy two able Committees of the 
 Senate — with a fair proportion of very talented Jurists on each — to in- 
 duce tinanimoiis reports in favor of the extension; and this too after 
 a careful and critical investigation of the facts and merits of the claim. 
 On the passage of the Bill through the Senate, it was stated by a mem- 
 ber of the Committee, who is also a very talented lawyer, and had 
 carefully investigated the case, that "the report of the Committee on 
 Patents and the Patent Office is unanimously in favor of the bill. It 
 is a very strong case, and one about which ihe Committee has no 
 doubt at all." 
 
 There is such a thing as retributive justice, where the attempt to 
 injure another in character or interests, recoils on its authors; and this 
 is believed to be one strictly of that character; for it enables us to ex- 
 pose the object of a combination, just as selfish and unjust, as it is 
 unwarranted by the facts. In seeking to maintain his own just rights, 
 Hussey has not assailed the character of any one; nor has he, in the 
 slightest degree, so far as we can perceive, attempted to invade the 
 rights of others. He has long resided, and is well known in the city 
 of Baltimore; and not altogether unknown in some other sections of 
 this State; possibly this "counsel" and "parties in the State of New 
 York" may have heard of him in other portions of the Union, if not in 
 foreign countries. However this may be, we leave it for others, disi?i- 
 tcrestcd parties, to say, whether they have ever known him engaged, 
 either by chicanery or open assault, to traduce private charatter, or 
 intentionally or knowingly, interfere with the rights and property of 
 others. 
 
 With these general remarks, we will examine the pamphlet in 
 question — refute its misstatements and perversions of facts, by documen- 
 tary evidence; and clearly show, as we think, that its sole motiv^e and 
 object is to deprive Obed Hussey of laurels fairly won — to rob him of 
 the reward justly earned, by more than twenty years of toil and per- 
 severance, to perfect this great and valuable labor-saving machine, 
 and transfer the profits to the pockets of a few designing and inter- 
 ested " parties in the State of New York." Who they are, or how 
 many, their " counsel" carefully conceals; nor are we surprised that in 
 such a cause, they desire concealment, and should prefer hiring one 
 
74 A REVIEW. 
 
 who appears quite ready and willing to invade the rights of others, and 
 to assail private character, without cause and without provocation, by 
 which to gain a fee. We only notice this attack on private character 
 at all, on the general principle that the oft repeated slander may as- 
 sume the garb of truth with some, if unnoticed and unexposed. 
 
 In quoting from the pamphlet, it is done, italics and all, just as 
 printed. On page ist it is stated: 
 
 " If the patent in question had not expired, and were before the Commissioner 
 of Patents on application for extension, the questions would be simply whether Mr. 
 Hussey had made a valuable invention, and whether he had failed from causes 
 beyond his control to obtain a reasonable remuneration therefor. If so, he would, 
 prima facie, be entitled to an extension, and it would be granted to him if consistent 
 with the public interests. [See 18 Sec. Stat, of 1836, and 1 Sec. Stat, of 1848.]— But 
 the patent having expired, and the public having thereby acquired the absolute right 
 to the invention, and having entered upon and extensively exercised that right 
 throughout the country for nearly seven years, and numerous individuals having in 
 good faith invested millions of dollars in the manufacture of improved machines 
 embodying some of the general features covered by this patent — other questions of 
 vast import to the public arise, and should be carefully considered." 
 
 Now the merits of the whole question of extension elaborately 
 argued in some I2 pages, might be comprised within the compass of a 
 nutshell; the authority and grounds for granting it are found in the 
 Act of July 4th, 1836, viz: has the applicant a valid claim as inventor, 
 — is the invention of value to the community, — and has he been ade- 
 quately rewarded thereby. But in order to avoid all cause for a 
 charge of unfairness, and at the risk of too much extending our review, 
 we will quote at greater length than is deemed necessary. It will also 
 show more clearly the spirit and motives of these "parties in the State 
 of New York" and their " counsel." 
 
 In page 3 it is stated, that " he had allowed his patent to expire, — had given no 
 public notice of an intention to extend it, and who has left the public in the posses- 
 sion and ownership of the invention, without suggesting or hinting that he intended 
 to make such an attempt for nearly six years! and until millions of dollars are in- 
 vested in the manufacture and sale of machines, improved by the valuable inven- 
 tions of others, but which embrace some of the elements covered by the patent 
 songht to be extended; [I!] the whole manufacture and sale of which would be made 
 subject to such tariff as the patentee under the extension might choose to impose, or 
 be arrested entirely by an injunction, or subjected to ruinous suits and damages at Law. 
 And be it remembered, these vast establishments sprang up, and these vast sums of 
 money were invested, when the invention of Hussey had long been fully and com- 
 pletely vested in the public, and all was done \xv good faith, without the slightest hint 
 or suspicion that even an attc7npt to renew \/as contemplated, or a belief in the 
 possibility of a renewal, or any reason to believe it any more than all steam navi- 
 gation should be laid under contribution, at the will of the heirs, by the renewal of 
 the patent of Robert Fulton!" 
 
 The learned "counsel " may well make a note of exclamation here; 
 a dozen would not be misplaced. We would like to ask him a single 
 question,— does he expect the public to believe all this? and does he 
 believe it himself? But hear him further, page four. 
 
 "It should be constantly borne in mind, that in 1847, prior to the expiration of 
 Hussev's patent, he might have applied under the then existing law, to the Board of 
 Extensions, and obtained an extension, if he had chosen to do so, and could have 
 shown himself to be entitled thereto. But he made no such application, as the 
 records of the Patent Office show." 
 
A REVIEW. 75 
 
 Again, same page: 
 
 " Now Mr. Hussey could not have been ignorant of this, [i. e. the "sixty days 
 rule," or notice] and he does not pretend to be ignorant that notice to adverse 
 parties was required by statute, to give them opportunity to oppose, iS:c. These 
 things I say Hussey knew, and does not dare to pretend ignorance of. 
 
 "Under this state of the law how does Hussey proceed? Why, he makes no 
 application at the proper time and place, but calls on the commissioner personally iox 
 the first time, ten days before the expiration of his patent, and talks \i\\\\. him about 
 an extension, and is of course told that he has by his own delay rendered it impos- 
 sible to give reasonable notice to adverse parties, and that his application will be 
 rejected if made, and that he had better save the fee. He is also informed that the 
 ^^^r/d'^/ //w^ for notice which the Board of Extensions consider reasonable, is sixty 
 days, and that they have long since adopted a rule to that affect. This rule, let it be 
 recollected, had been previously for years, and still was, circulated freely in the same 
 pamphlet with the instructions to those who have business with the Patent Office, 
 among all who desired the pamphlet, and sent to almost every patentee in the 
 country, and none having occasion to know could be ignorant without the gros- 
 sest negligence of the rule adopted by the board. A note to the Commissioner 
 would have brought him, without a penny of expense, and within twenty-four hours 
 fro7n mailiiig his note a perfect printed copy of all the rules on the subject. A plea of 
 ignorance is always suspicious, and under such circumstances becomes peculiarly so. 
 'W^z.?,'\\. real ignorance,ox 2l ruse \.o escape thorough investigation without subjecting 
 himself to the presumptions which always arise from dodging investigation? Igno- 
 rance is sometimes very convenient, so convenient that the law never allows a party to 
 avail himself of its benefits, when he might have known. By this igfiorance or trick 
 he has effectually escaped investigation. Shall he also escape adverse presump- 
 tions, and thus derive a double benefit from his inexcusable ignorance, whether real 
 or feigned? Shall an innocent public suffer the consequences of Hussey's inexcusable 
 neglect, while he reaps only its advantages?" 
 
 Now we would ask the intelligent reader, what could have been 
 the inducement for these "clients" — "the principal of them who did 
 not enter upon the business until years after the expiration of 
 Hussey's patent," [of course meaning Howard & Co., the assignees of 
 Ketchum's patent] to "invest millions of dollars" in the manufacture 
 of machines, that they knew perfectly well were " embodying some of 
 the general features covered by this patent," — in another place — 
 " which embrace some of the elements covered by the patent sought 
 to be extended " — and in a third place, " embrace a single feature of 
 his patent?" 
 
 How were these " millions of dollars" acquired, that were not in- 
 vested until " the inventions of Hussey had long bedn fully and com- 
 pletely vested in the public," — " not until they left the fullest 
 opportunity to apply to the Patent Office before the expiration of the 
 patent, or to Congress after'' — nor " until years after the expiration of 
 Hussey's patent?" &c., &c. They either made these "millions" at 
 other kinds of business, — if indeed they were ever made — whilst 
 Hussey was struggling in poverty and adversity, and straining every 
 nerve to perfect and introduce the machine into use ; and as it would 
 appear, J2ist in time for these capitalists to realize other " Diillions "from 
 his labors ! ox , if made since, by the sale of machines, they are rich 
 enough already, 7nanufactured out of the brains of other jne?i, and have no 
 right whatever to interfere. And you to talk about Hussey having 
 "become the cat's-paw of a more designing and grasping man!! " 
 
 It is perfectly well known to every machinist in the country who 
 
76 ■ A REVIEW. 
 
 has ever seen a Reaper, that no great outlay in machinery is required 
 to build them on a moderate scale, and that the same machinery is 
 equally adapted to the construction of threshing machines, and a 
 hundred other kinds of work. It is only in such shops — "these vast 
 establishments," as these parties in the State of New York have, who 
 boast of selling their thousands upon thousands of Reapers annually, 
 that "millions" can be used; and with these, the main expense is for 
 materials and workmanship, not dead capital invested in machinery. 
 It is however just as easy to zvrite 7nillions, as thousands. We have 
 known good and efificient reapers built — after the right was honestly 
 obtained, to build the riglit kind, — by persons who were not mechanics 
 by profession. A good country blacksmith, aided by a worker in 
 wood, and a suitable lathe to turn the journals, are altogether com- 
 petent with a little experience to do the work; and such has been the 
 start, of almost every original itiventor. True, tl.e Capitalist by a divi- 
 sion of labor, and more extensive machinerv can do a largerbusiness, 
 and make more ?mmey. 
 
 Much parade is made, and much stress laid, on doing injustice to 
 the "public" — "the innocent public," in granting this particular 
 extension. Do the farmers, who alone use these machines, constitute 
 the "innocent public" which so claims their sympathy? By no 
 means; but it consists of — and by their own showing, a few million- 
 aires, the assignees of a poor patentee, who seek to deprive others of 
 their just rights, in order to increase still more, their own sordid gains. 
 The Farmer is not\\\Q party sought to be benefitted in this crusade 
 against a " sailor's right:" //;«> interest, and the " public good," are 
 but as the paw of poor puss to get at the roasted chestnuts. Do these 
 very disinterested and public spirited parties who are so alive to the 
 " public good," reduce the price of their machines to the farmer? Do 
 they not charge just as high for them now, when they boast of selling 
 thousands annually, as when the sales did not reach hundreds? We 
 know they do, for we have now before us their hand bills for several 
 years past. 
 
 We do not believe there is a disinterested and liberal minded 
 farmer or mechanic in the Union, who knowing the facts or true 
 merits of the case, would oppose or object to the extension. All such 
 with whom we have conferred, both as Societies and individually, are 
 in favor of it, as a reward fairly and fully earned by years of toil, in 
 the effort to benefit the agricultural interests of the country. This is 
 not the place to enter into details of profits, &c.; but as we sometimes 
 arrive at correct results by comparisons, it may be stated, that owing 
 to his very limited means in part, but more to the great difficulty in 
 inducing the farmers to adopt improvements, — proverbial as they 
 generally are for caution, and adhering to old and long established 
 usages — Hussey sold less tJian tJiree hundred maehines, all told, [but not 
 paid for to this day,] during the whole term of the Patent, of fourteen 
 years! \X. rQC[\nrc(:\ elei'en years to sell less than half of them: — not an 
 average of the ^;/^ hundredth part of what these capitalists, or "the 
 principal of then" boast of having sold in a single year ; nor \S\q. four 
 
A REVIEW. 'it 
 
 himdrcdtJi part of what one of their agents stated they would make and 
 sell the current year! ! ! We would say to these " parties," as did the 
 Speaker of the Virginia House of Burgesses to a very modest man, 
 though he afterward attained to so})ie celebrity, by always acting on 
 the principle, that "honesty is the best policy,'' "sit down Mr. 
 Washington; your great deeds are only equalled by your modesty." 
 
 It is comparatively an east thing, after the forest is levelled, the 
 track opened and cleared out, bridges erected, and the rails laid down, 
 iox X\\& Locomotive \.o fly as on "the wings of the wind," and almost 
 annihilating time and space. 
 
 And just so wuth these capitalists; after long years of privation 
 and perseverance in inventing and perfecting this invaluable machine, 
 and the still greater difficulties and delays are overcome, in getting it 
 introduced into use by the inventor, they, with a large money capital, 
 have no difficulty in erecting " vast establishments," and selling 
 machines by thousands. Like the merciless Kite, they watch their 
 chance, and pounce down upon the innocent prey in the farm yard. 
 But "ware the farmer boy" with his rusty old fire-lock; for before 
 soaring away with his prize, the depredator may perchance find his 
 wings clipped, and his talons rendered powerless, by an unexpected 
 but well aimed shot. 
 
 It is asserted over and over again by this " Counsel," not less than 
 three or fourtimes, that sixty days' 7iotice was necessary by the " rule " 
 of the board of extensions; that Hussey calls on the Co7nmissioner 
 personally for the jirst time Ten Days before the expiration of his 
 patent, and talks with him about an extension; is informed that the 
 "' s/iortest tijne'' for the notice is sixty days; — long since adopted, and 
 that it had been previously and for years printed and circulated freely 
 by the Patent OfHce, &;c. &c. But before returning this broadside, we 
 will get into close quarters, and receive another from pages 5 and 6 — 
 
 " But even if he had been i2;norant of the szxfv days' ntle, adopted by the board, 
 he could not have been ignorant that in a country so wide spread as this, a shorter 
 term of notice, to allow those interested adversely to hear of the application, and 
 prepare their testimony for the hearing, zvoitld not he sufficient, or reasonable, or just 
 to the public, but would be mocking the public and individuals by the forms of law 
 without its substance, and trampling upon their rights while they were msulted by a 
 sha7n notice. It would be recalling the days of that tyrant who published his edicts 
 by writing them in small letters, and placing them so high in the air that people 
 could not read them, and still recjuiring compliance, or the consequences. Hussey 
 could not have intended the public to have notice, and could have delayed the call on 
 the Commissioner till withing ten days oi the expiration of his patent, for no other 
 purpose, than to deprive the public of the means of notice, and obtain his extension 
 covertly on ex-parte affidavits, while the public and those interested, were mocked 
 and instilled, by legal forms. I say he could not have intended \o act in good faith. 
 And why— but that his pretensions would not bear the light. If he had applied yf/?)' 
 days before the expiration, there might have been an appearance of sincerity ; but 
 how miserable is the plea that he did not know the precise number of days limited by 
 the board, when he did not apply at all, and called on the commissioner for the first 
 time on the subject, but ten days before the expiration of the jpatent! The facts 
 destroy every prestonption of good faith. He did not intend to allow a fair investiga- 
 tion but to stifle it, and get an extension on an ex-parte hearing, where he could 
 prove what he pleased, without danger of contradiction. 
 
 'But again: The course pursued left no traces. Nothing appears on the record 
 
78 A REVIEW. 
 
 of the proper office, to show that the subject was ever broached there, or to give 
 notice of his intentions. Those, therefore, who sought information at the proper 
 point, could learn only that no attempt had ever been made to obtain an extension, 
 which put them off the track. — The conversation between Hussey and the Commis- 
 sioner appears to have been entirely secret, and is shown to have taken place only 
 by a private letter of Edmund Burke to the chairman of the Senate Committee, 
 some four months after the alleged interview. There was nothing to give those who 
 were interested adversely the slightest hint that an extension was contemidated, how- 
 ever diligently it might be sought.— His track being entirely covered, he proceeds 
 with equal secrecy to Congress with his petition, and his wretched excuse about 
 ignorance of the sixty days' rule — but without any excuse for his delay till ten days 
 before the expiration of his patent — it admitted of none — and prayed an extension by 
 their extraordinary interposition! " 
 
 Now onQ fact dX least, appears to be conclusively established, and 
 that is, this astute "counsel" considers himself perfectly an fait in 
 " law," and the " rules and regulations of the Patent Office." If he 
 had understood them only half as well as he appears to do the bandy- 
 ing of reproachful epithets, it would be better for hiui, though not for 
 his cause. As this '' sixty days' rule " appears to be the strong hold of 
 the counsel — his " Rock of Gibraltar," we will examine it with a little 
 more attention. 
 
 Knowing, we presume, but little about law, and still less about "the 
 rules and regulations of the Patent Office " — for all his time, and con- 
 stant labor with his own hands, were required in the workshop to earn 
 a bare support, — but being very desirous to obtain an extension of his 
 Patent before it should expire, and also having some personal acquaint- 
 ance with Commissioner Ellsworth, Hussey's first application was 
 made to him in 1845, ^ short time previous to his going out of ofifice; 
 certainly not less than tzvclve rnonths before the expiration. This is 
 proved by the annexed letter: 
 
 La Fayette, Ia., July 3, 1854. 
 
 Dear Sir: — Your letter of some weeks since, referring to a con- 
 versation I had with you while I was Commissioner of Patents, 
 relative to the extension of your patent for a Reaper, would have 
 been answered earlier, but for absence and extreme pressure of 
 business. 
 
 If my recollection will aid you, I most cheerfully state, that before 
 your patent expired, you consulted me as to the extension of the 
 same. I replied that it was better to postpone an application until 
 near the time the patent would run out, for the Office must estimate 
 the profits of the invention during the whole term; and you accord- 
 ingly postponed it. I regret you postponed it too long. The publi- 
 cation of thirty days before the patent expired, was a rule as published 
 by m}'self. If you have lost your opportunity for relief through (the) 
 Patent Ofiice, you must of course go to Congress. — I have always 
 regarded your improvement as valuable, and that the country is 
 greatly indebted to your persevering efforts, notwithstanding the 
 obstacles presented. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 HENRY L. ELLSWORTH. 
 Mr. Obcd Hussev, Balto. Md. , 
 
A REVIEW. • 79 
 
 This at least presents " an appcavMice of sincerity ; " and at once cuts 
 down tltQ " sixty d/fys' rule" to a " t/iirty days' rule." But the Reaper 
 can cut better than to leave /la/f the grain standing. It usually cuts 
 every head! Hussey acted on this official advice; and did " postpone 
 an application until near the time the patent would run out " — literally 
 so, for he was not advised of even the " thirty days' rule." 
 
 When he again applied, and not " until near the time the patent 
 would run out," Edmund Burke was Commissioner of Patents. He 
 states in a letter to Senators Douglas and Shields, under date March 
 4th, 1850, as follows: 
 
 '* In relation to the patent of Hussey, if my memory serves me, his 
 patent expired some time within the latter part of December, 1847. 
 During that month, and within some ten or twelve days before the 
 expiration of his patent, he applied to me as Commissioner of Patents, 
 for an extension. I informed him, that inasmuch as the act of Con- 
 gress prescribed the mode in which patents should be extended; re- 
 quired a reasonable notice to be given to the public in sundry news- 
 papers, published in those parts of the country most interested against 
 such extension; and as the board had decided that 'reasonable' 
 notice should be a publication of the application for extension three 
 weeks prior to the day appointed for the hearing, there was not time 
 to give the required notice in his case; and I advised Mr. Hussey not 
 to make his application, and thus lose the fee of $40 required in such 
 cases, as he inevitably would, without the least prospect of succeeding 
 in his application — but to petition Congress for an extension, which 
 body had the power to grant it." 
 
 Well, the "sixty days' rule," so relied on and harped upon, is here 
 clearly shorn of tzvo thirds of its fair proportions. 
 
 It is shown by the foregoing letters, that one commissioner advised 
 a delay in the application, — and for apparently very sound reasons. 
 On the second application to Edmund Burke, on the twentieth day of 
 December, 1847, elcvc7i days before the expiration, and when the 
 patent //^('/nearly run out, he was informed that the "rule " or notice 
 required, is " three weeks prior to the day appointed for the hearing." 
 
 He was again officially advised not to make the application to the 
 Patent office, and lose the fee of forty dollars, but to " make the 
 application to Congress, which body had the power to grant it." It 
 thus appears that one Commissioner had established a " rule " of 
 " thirty days," and the other a " rule " of " 21 days." 
 
 The counsel asserts positively, that Hussey did not actually apply 
 at all: only called on the Commissioner and talks with him ten days 
 before the expiration, and was told of the " sixty days' rule." Now 
 the Commissioner asserts just as positively \\\-aXYi\\ssey did apply for 
 a?i extension, and was informed of the three zvccks notice being requisite. 
 Is it probable that Commissioner Burke was also so "ignorant" as not 
 to know when an application was made to him, and of the notice re- 
 quired by his own rule? — The thing is too absurd for comment ; and 
 we leave the counsel seated on both horns of his dilemma. 
 
 It further appears, that both commissioners viewed the claim as a 
 
80 A REVIEW. 
 
 most meritorious one, and fully entitled to an extension; Commis- 
 sioner Burke so expressed himself in another part of the letter referred 
 to — advising Congress to grant it. We presume the sole and only 
 reason why he did not grant it, was the lack of time to give " three 
 weeks notice," according to his rule; the time was too sJiort. Com- 
 missioner Ellsworth did not grant the extension because the notice 
 would be too long ; and thus "between the sJiort and the lo7ig of it," and 
 by the new code of tnoral lazo established by this " counsel and parties 
 in the State of New York," the poor patentee is to be deprived and 
 defrauded of his just rights! We say deprived of his just rights ; — for 
 both by the law of 1836, and the usage of the Patent Office, inventors 
 as a matter of course, had extensions granted for seven years, if the 
 claim was meritorious, and the reward inadequate, during the fourteen 
 years, in the judgment of the Board of Extensions. As before 
 remarked, these facts were established to the full and entire satisfac- 
 tion of two committees of the Senate; and acting on these reports, the 
 Senate passed a bill for his relief. 
 
 Now we would ask any and all right minded men, both in and out 
 of Congress, who are willing "to do unto others as they would wish to 
 be done by," if it would be right or just — would it be in accordance 
 with the true spirit and intentions of the law — to deny an extension on 
 these grounds? 
 
 How was the uninitiated and unskilled patentee to act under such 
 circumstances, when even this " counsel leariicd in the law," and 
 " familiar with the rules and regulations of the Patent Office," as he 
 professes to be, is so completely at fault? He it appears only knew 
 of the **sixty days' rule;" which even Congress and the Commissioners 
 were ignorant of. Perhaps there will have to be a "wretched excuse 
 about ignorance," in another quarter, before the "sixty days" are over 
 and gone. 
 
 We pass by the insinuations and gross charges of "pretended 
 ignorance," — ''sJiani notice'' — "never intended to act in good faith,"— 
 "wretched excuse about ignorance of the sixty days' rule" — "skulked 
 the tribunal provided by law" — "creeps quietly and unobserved into 
 the committee room," &c, &c,with the single remark, that they are 
 just as undeserved as they are unbecoming and uncalled for. — ^o good 
 cause needs such epithets to sustain it; and it is perhaps the very best 
 evidence of a (^('/(a? cause, thus needlessly and wantonly to assail the 
 reputation of another, for lack of manly argument and sound reasons, 
 to support it. Surely this "counsel" could not expect us to believe 
 that there was no one in the Congress of the United States so well 
 qualified as himself, to judge of morals and propriety;— to say nothing 
 about laiv^ and "the rules and regulations of the Patent Office? " Has 
 he not common sense enough to perceive, that these denunciations 
 reflect in no measured terms on the rntelligence and //^//(?r of Senators, 
 who thoroughly investigated the claim and passed the Bill? 
 
 We have shown by the testimony of both Commissioners, that they 
 at least had no such "sixty days' rule." The Act of July 4, 1836. does 
 not contain it, in section, clause or line; but the "rules" that did exist. 
 
A REVIEW. 81 
 
 originated in the Board of Extensions; — were subject to change — were 
 changed. A pamphlet of "Information " published November, 1842, 
 and forwarded by Commissioner Ellsworth, "and without a penny of 
 expense " to an applicant but a short time before he went out of office, 
 does not contain any notice of even his "30 days' rule;" so that this so 
 oft repeated "sixty days rule," had not tJicn an existence, even in the 
 fertile brain of this "counsel. ' To meet the pnsc /it views and wishes 
 of these very dishitcrestcd "parties," there ought to have been a "sixty days 
 rule;" and it sJionld have been like the laws of the Medes and Persians, 
 "which alter not, neither do they change;" — and also like the "higher 
 laiv" of this modern "tyrant who published his edicts by writing them 
 in small letters, and placing them so /ligh in the air that people could 
 not read them, and still requiring compliance, or the consequences." 
 
 We have it from very high authority — both sacred and profane, 
 that "where no law is, there is no transgression." Now how is the 
 "law and the testimony?" It was not until late in May, 1848, that 
 applicants were required by " law," or by " rule," to give 60 days' 
 notice; and months after Xhe petition, — by the advice of Hon. Edmund 
 Burke, — was presented to Congress; — and even (?/?tr the Report was 
 made in its favor by the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, 
 of the Senate! 
 
 The patent expired December 31, 1847. "^he petition was presented 
 to the Senate February 7, 1848. The bill for his relief was reported 
 May 15, 1848 and was both printed and " published;" noticed as apart 
 of the proceedings of Congress, by the press throughout the United 
 States, and every body thus notified of the application. 
 
 The lazv requiring the 60 days' notice, was not approved and oper- 
 ative, until May 27, 1848. And not to " leave a single head standing," 
 in farmer phrase, the pamphlets of the Patent Office previous to this 
 date, published ?io such, notice, if two honorable and able Commission- 
 ers are worthy of credence. 
 
 We hope the learned " Counsel" who was so " familiar with the rules 
 and regulations of the Patent Office," will pardon us for showing him 
 by the annexed notice of the Commissioner of Patents that so late as 
 12 o'clock Meridian on the Third Monday in February, 1848, there 
 never had be e7i a "Sixty days' rule:" and he " may know by making the 
 proper enquiries at the proper places," where the original may be 
 found, of which the following is a copy; and he may perchance also 
 find on the files of the Patent Office pretty decided "traces" and in 
 writing too, not "talks" only — for they are certainly there — of the 
 reasons and arguments in favor of Hussey's right of extension. 
 
 Patent Office, Jan'y. 21, 1848. 
 
 On the petition of C. H. M'cCormick of Steel's Tavern, Virginia, 
 praying for the extension of a patent, granted to C. H. M'Cormick 
 for an improvement in Reaping Machines, for seven years from the 
 expiration of said patent, which takes place on 21st day of June, I848. 
 
 It is ordered that the said petition be heard at the Patent Office, on 
 the Third Monday in February at 12 o'clock M., and all persons are 
 
82 A REVIEW. 
 
 notified to appear,and show cause if any they have, why said petition 
 ought not to be granted. 
 
 Ordered also that this notice be published in the Union and 
 National Intelligencer, Washington, (and several other papers) once a 
 week for three successive zueeks previous to the Third Monday i?i February 
 next. 
 
 Edmund Burke, 
 Commissioner of Patents. 
 
 P. S. — Editors of the above papers will please copy and send their 
 bills to the Patent Office with a paper containing this notice. 
 
 To insinuate that all these proceedings were " secret" or" covertly" 
 done, either designedly, or in fact, is a perversion of the truth, and an 
 insult to Congress. 
 
 From the foregoing evidence, the candid reader will judge what 
 degree of reliance can be placed on any of the broad charges and sweep- 
 ing denunciations of such a " counsel " as this. He appears to practice 
 on the principle that the " end justifies the means,'" regardless alike 
 of facts and figures; or, he manifests a degree of " ignorance," wholly 
 inexcusable in one who undertakes to enlighten even the mechanic, 
 much less the Congress of the United States. We are aware that 
 advice unsolicited, is rarely appreciated; but will venture to suggest to 
 this gentleman, that if his failing' proceeds from ;yc?/ " ignorance," it 
 might be found profitable to resume his studies before again attempt- 
 ing to practice. If he would designedly 'wapose his incorrect statements 
 on Members of Congress and others, we would say to him — and from 
 a longer experience with the world than he has had, — " Honesty is 
 always the best policy," — whether in getting claimsthrough Congress, 
 or in his intercourse with " the rest of mankind." 
 
 As before remarked, it is brought as a grave charge against Hussey 
 that he was ignorant of the "sixty days' r\.\\e," — the man confined to 
 his workshop, and compelled to labor with his own hands for his daily 
 bread — while this same " counsel," a resident of the City of Washington, 
 and whose occupation is to prosecute or defeat claims, for a considera- 
 tion, and as the case may be, is still more ignorant. 
 
 We opine that " Othello's occupation's gone," unless he finds out a 
 way to manage " a case " better than this. 
 
 He tells us that the business was all done in the " most secret quiet 
 manner:" ///rj/ did not " know that the petition to extend the patent 
 was before the Committee," — did "not know that it was published, 
 until divulged by accident;" — that, "the Committee, of course, when 
 relieved from their labors, desire to sink the shop and obtain recrea- 
 tion—and would not speak of the business," &c., &c. 
 
 Now we would z.sV,%vhose business was it to know before invading 
 the rights of others, and "investing millions of dollars" in what they 
 rt'^V^ know was never invented by them? What would it avail the 
 Pirate on the high seas, before a court and jury when indicted for felo- 
 niously taking the property of others, to enter the " wretched excuse 
 about ignorance" of the law, and allege the plea that he " was artfully 
 
A REVIEW. • 83 
 
 drawn into the business," and had " invested vast sums of money" in 
 his ship? And what think you, would a righteous judge probably 
 answer to such pleading as this?. Your plea cannot, and ought not to 
 avail you. You at least /^//t'cc^ that the property was }wt yours. You 
 were not " decoyed," or " artfully drawn into " this piratical business. 
 But you voluntarily made your own election to run the hazard, 
 FOR THE SAKE OF GAIN. You not Only plunder the poor sailor of ship 
 and cargo, but you would turn him adrift on the wide ocean, without 
 chart or compass, and with only a single and frail plank, to die a lin- 
 gering death. You have not a shadow of claim on the justice or 
 mercy of the court! 
 
 He thinks however, "If Hussey had cautioned them--so that they 
 would have been prepared to resist the extension or avoid falling into 
 the snare — the case would have been different; but his course has been 
 such as to drazu them into the business [ / .'^ and it remains to be seen, 
 whether, having thus drawn them in, he shall have the aid of Congress 
 to fleece them." 
 
 It certainly comes with a very bad grace from these parties to talk 
 aboutyfcYr/w^. They would "fleece " the very man — the true and orig- 
 inal inventor by their own showing — by whose efforts and long devo- 
 tion to the cause, they are now realizing " millions of dollars." We 
 trust Congress can perceive the full force of such reasoning as this, and 
 the true source of the fleecing. 
 
 We like the Teacher whcXhev in Lazu or Gospel, whose practice cor- 
 responds with his precepts. Hussey aimed at no concealment; none 
 was practiced, either in, or out of Congress; the evidence conclusively 
 proves it; and to make such pretense, can only proceed from design. 
 But how was it with this " counsel and parties in the State of New 
 York?" Was Hussey "warned" or " cautioned " by you, or a pam 
 phlet placed in his hands, so that he "would have been prepared " to 
 refute these false allegations and assumptions? Were not these 
 pamphlets "secretly" distributed to some Members just as it was sup- 
 posed the bill would claim the action of the House, and carefully 
 " concealed " and kept out of the way of other Members believed to be 
 favorableto the petitioner, and thus forestall all opportunity to reply? 
 And when advised that the Committee on Patents of the House, could 
 not report at this Session, were not the pamphlets again " concealed " 
 as much as possible, or sent to members during the recess, to be ready 
 for the onslaught at the next session of Congress? But thanks to an 
 honorable high minded Western Member, who witnessed the game, a 
 copy soon found its way into other hands than it was intended for. 
 
 it is believed such was the fact. This however is certainly known; 
 that one or more of the agents employed to distribute the pamphlets, 
 desired their ozvn names miglit be " concealed!' " Why beholdest thou the 
 mote that is in thy brother s eye, but considerest not the beam that is 
 in thine own eye? '. 
 
 Having shown clearly, and proved, by the most reliable testimony, 
 that all the charges of " trick,'' — " secrecy " — " wretched excuse about 
 ignorance," " skulking,'' &c. trumpt up to defeat the extension were 
 
84 A REVIEW. 
 
 entirely groundless, — not to say malicious, we will show, and prove 
 also, that instead of being a " delinquent and snare-setting patentee" — 
 " setting a trap for manufacturers " — or " that he had so long concealed 
 his intention — to obtain an extension," &c., that Hussey was using 
 every honorable effort within his means and knowledge, to get the 
 Patent extended by Congress. 
 
 Those who have ever made the trial, need not to be told of the dififi- 
 culties, expenses and delays — often for a dozen years— attending the 
 prosecution of private claims. No matter how meritorious they may 
 be, there is nearly always delay; and often too, justice is so long post- 
 poned, that the poor applicant after spending his last dollar in the 
 fruitless effort for expenses, or for fees to a set of Shylock's, is forced 
 to abandon his claim in despair, or death closes the scene of all his 
 earthly labors and trials. If our memory serves us, there was once a 
 case of a private claim, that occupied the attention of Congress for 
 some tiventy-jive to thirty years ; and that claimant a widow lady too! 
 It is believed she also died before the claim was adjusted. Is it indeed 
 so very strange that private bills were delayed in Congress from 1848 
 to 1852-3, the most exciting period in the political annals of the coun- 
 try for 40 years? — and following upon the sectional strife resulting 
 from the Mexican War — the admission of California into the Union, 
 and the consequent agitation of that all-absorbing subject slavery, 
 which appeared for a time likely to rend asunder even the Union 
 itself? But "there are none so blind, as those that zvotitsee." 
 
 The annexed letters are deemed quite sufificient to establish this 
 point, though more evidence, if necessary, is at hand. 
 
 Washington, 5th Sept., 1854. 
 Obed Hussey, Esq., Baliijnore — 
 
 My Dear Sir: I have recently learned, with surprise and indigna- 
 tion, that certain spcailating liarpics who fill their coffers with the prod- 
 ucts of other men's brains, and who, in your case, seek to " reap 
 where they sow not," are basely and unjustly endeavoring to prevent a 
 renewal of your patent for your "Reaping and Mowing Machine," 
 upon the ground, [among others], that you and your agents have 
 neglected to press your Claim properly before Congress. 
 
 I have been your Agent from the time the claim was first presented 
 to Congress, and kjioiv that the Charge is entirely unfounded. 
 
 The facts according to the best of my recollection and belief, are as 
 follows: Your Claim for a renewal was presented to Congress at the 
 very first Session, z.{t^x you- ascertained that your application to the 
 Commissioner could not be acted upon under the rules of the Patent 
 Of^ce. Every paper and proof necessary to establish your right to a 
 renewal of your patent, under the existing laws, was procured, and 
 promptly placed with your memorial, before Congress. No further 
 proof was required by the Committee on Patents, in the Senate, and 
 your right to a renewal was fully established by an able and unanswer- 
 able report of that Committee, accompanied by a bill for a renewal. — 
 This report and bill were printed by order of the Senate, and were 
 
' A REVIEW. 85 
 
 noticed as a part of the proceedings of Congress, by the press through- 
 out the United States, and every body thus notified of your application. 
 
 From that period to the present time, I do not think there has been 
 a single Congress at which all proper efforts were not made to obtain 
 the action of that Body. Members were not annoyed with indecent 
 importunity; nor were any powerful combinations of interested indi 
 viduals resorted to, \.o force your Claim upon the consideration of Con- 
 gress. This was not in accordance with your taste, or your means. I 
 well remember, however, that you frequently visited this City on that 
 business; and that at almost every session, you either brought or sent 
 to me, to- be laid before Congress, some new evidence of the triumph 
 of your great invention. — These documents were faithfully laid before 
 that body, or sent to the senators from Maryland for that purpose. 
 On one occasion, as your agent, I addressed a somewhat extended 
 communication to the Senators from Maryland, attempting to show 
 the vast importance of your invention to the Agricultural interests of 
 the United States, and the strong claims you had to a renewal of your 
 patent, and requested them as the Representatives of your State in the 
 Senate, to give their attention and influence to accomplish that end. 
 
 At a subsequent Session, this request was repeated, to one or both 
 of the Senators from that State. 
 
 I can also state with certainty that hardly a Session of Congress 
 has passed since your memorial was first presented, at which prominent 
 and Scientific Agriculturists, in different parts of the Country, who 
 were acquainted with the merits of your invention, have not used their 
 influence with Members of Congress to obtain a renewal of your patent. 
 Any pretense therefore, that your Claim has not been duly presented, 
 notified to the public, and urged with all proper care and diligence 
 upon the attention of Congress, I repeat is totally Jinfoimded. 
 
 It will be a stain upon the justice of the Country, if one whom truth 
 and time must rank among its greatest Benefactors, shall be stricken 
 down and permitted to die in indigence by the interested and unworthy 
 efforts thus made to defeat you. 
 
 You are at liberty to use this statement in any manner you may 
 desire. Very truly and respectfully, 
 
 Your Ob't Ser'vt, 
 CHA'S E. SHERMAN. 
 
 Harewood, 9th Mo. 7. '54. 
 Esteemed Fric?id, 0. Hussey : 
 
 I duly received, and have carefully read the Pamphlet by W. N. P. 
 Fitzgerald, [the attorney for a few interested parties at the North,] in 
 opposition to the extension of the Patent of 1833. And in answer to 
 the queries, whether the charges are true that no efforts have been 
 made to procure the passage of the bill by Congress, or that they 
 have been "secretly" or "covertly" made, I can state from my per- 
 sonal knowledge, that they are not only untrue in fact, but entirely 
 groundless. I was not previously aware, that claims cordd be " secretly " 
 
86 A REVIEW. 
 
 prese?ited or prosecuted, and " secretly " acted on by the two Houses 
 of Congress! 
 
 Some years since, — even before purchasing a machine for my own 
 use, I received numerous letters from individuals not only in this, but 
 adjoining States, [and some of them entire strangers even by name,] 
 desiring my opinion both as a farmer and machinist, in regard to their 
 purchases of Reaping Machines. With this view and also for my own 
 benefit, I carefully examined every machine within my reach; and the 
 result was, a decided conviction that " Hussey's Reaper" was the most 
 efficient, strong, and durable; and that the peculiar construction of the 
 cutting apparatus, particularly of the guards, was the only true and 
 efficient principle that ever had been invented for the purpose. 
 
 Many machines were thus purchased on my recommendation; and 
 all, without exception have worked well, when properly managed. 
 My own machine has much more than realized my expectations; for 
 several years past, doing the work of ten or a dozen scythes in the 
 grass fields, doing it better, and at less than one-fourth o,f the expense. 
 
 Knowing that an application was pending for an extension of the 
 Patent, and greatly desiring to see the inventive talent and genius of our 
 countrymen properly rewarded, as well as from a feeling of gratitude 
 to one who has conferred so signal a benefit on the Agriculturists of 
 the country at large, some three or four years since I wrote to influen- 
 tial characters at Washington,' urging the extension as due to the 
 Inventor, and in strict accordance with both the letter and spirit of 
 the Patent Laws. From that day to the present, I have not failed 
 at all proper times and places, with Members of Congress and others, 
 to advocate the cause, both verbally, and with my pen. So far from 
 desiring " secrecy " or " concealment," my letters were written with the 
 object, and full permission given, to print and publish them. 
 
 Acting from a conscious feeling of rectitude, and from disinterested 
 motives, it is difficult to read this pamphlet without some feeling of 
 indignation; and I am at a loss to say which is the most censurable, — 
 the selfish motives that appear to prompt this opposition, and to take 
 from another what is known, and admitted to be his right; or, the 
 unscrupulous disregard of those amenities of social life — a due regard 
 for the private character of others, — that should characterize the advo- 
 cate and gentleman, everywhere; and which are not often seen even in 
 the pettyfogging county court lawyer, who desires to pass himself off 
 with his light, "brief," and before an ignorant jury, as something extra. 
 If these parties cannot effect their object without thus traducing pri- 
 vate character, they will not succeed in that way. It was remarked by 
 a wise man, "that there was no danger from error, if truth was left 
 free to combat it." I have no doubt whatever that in this case, truth 
 and merit, will triumph over error and sordid motives. I shall cer- 
 tainly aid them all in my power, humble and feeble as may be their 
 advocate. Very respectfully, 
 
 Edward Stabler. 
 
 Several pages of this scurrilous pamphlet are devoted'to convey the 
 idea, that there is now " a secret alliance " — a collusion between Cyrus 
 
A REVIEW. 87 
 
 H. McCormick and Obed Hussey, to obtain this extension of patent, 
 in order that they may "share the spoils!" It is a strange compound 
 of insinuation, declamation, inconsistency and absurdity: and it is about 
 as difficult to compete with the "counsel " on this, his favored field, with 
 sound argument or logical reasoning, as to attempt to " bottle moon- 
 shine " for future use. The charge is not sustained by a particle of 
 evidence — nay, he even endeavours to vilify, if not discredit his 
 own witness, C. H. McCormick, whom he drags on the witness stand. 
 McCormick by his showing, is an Algcrine any how; — but if he will 
 help him to capture this prize, he " shall be entitled to his gratitude ; " 
 if not, he too is to be immolated on the shrine of modern Moloch. 
 The learned " counsel " is very like an errant farmer boy, who was sent 
 into the field to catch a cunning and incorrigible old nag; he took a 
 mibbi/i oi corn in one hand, and a cudgel \\\ the other: if the nubbin 
 cheated him, to be bridled, well and good; but if too cunning to be 
 thus caught, then came down the cudgel. The very learned " counsel " 
 certainly deserves a patent himself for his ingenious device in getting 
 a witness to testify in his favor. 
 
 This however is like all the other charges brought against Hussey; 
 — not even '' founded o\\ fact," as the writers of fiction are wont to say. 
 It is not proposed to enter into any defence of C. H. McCormick, or 
 his claim; he is doubtless quite competent to take care of himself 
 against this assault; and if no better testimony can be brought to 
 invalidate it, the task will be an easy one. But it is due to him and to all 
 others to state distinctly and positively that the charge is wholly gratu- 
 itous and unfounded. 
 
 But there was no occasion for this " delinquent and snare setting 
 patentee " to " set a trap " at all; nor need " Congress spring the trap 
 that has been set for them, i. e., the ' parties in the State of New York,' 
 and so artfully concealed." Their " counsel " has effectually sprung 
 it on the real trappers by his own bungling and " ignorance," and not 
 on the innocent and unoffending ^^w^. We would copy entire, pages 
 9, 10, II and I2, as an admirable specimen of special pleading, — the 
 best we ever saw, considering, there was neither fact, testimony, or even 
 tolerable circumstantial evidence to base it on, — only that it would too 
 much extend our review: we will however give a very fair and full 
 sample, Vvith an analysis, and the unprejudiced reader can judge for him- 
 self; and also whether it is not somewhat like the patent double-edged 
 razor, made to cut both ways. It was not however a very useful inven- 
 tion — not like " Husseys reaper," which cuts best both ways — for while 
 the operator was shaving the upper lip with one edge, the other was cut- 
 ting his )iose. The counsel says: 
 
 '' Until the present Congress, Cyrus H. McCormick, the inventor, 
 or rather compiler of " McCormick's reaping machine," was opposed to 
 the extension of this patent, and has been constantly before the com- 
 mittee seeking the extension of his own patent; and, as he was per- 
 fectly conversant with the history of the Hussey machine and with the 
 profits derived from it, as a rival machine, could have furnished testi- 
 mony to defeat the extension. 
 
88 A REVIEW. 
 
 " Now, however, McCormick havinfr become satisfied, after sev-eral 
 years' labor before Congress, that he cannot obtain an extension of his 
 own patent, and finding Hussey's machine one of the principal obsta- 
 cles in his way, and that Hussey's patent will be more available for the 
 purposes of " black mail " than his own, has made a secret alliance with 
 Hussey to share the spoils, and has prompted, in the most quiet man- 
 ner, an extension of this patent. I say in the most quiet manner, 
 because I am not aware that any person outside of the committee room, 
 except McCormick, Hussey, and his counsel, knew that a petition to 
 extend the patent was before the committee, until the bill to extend it 
 was reported — and even then it was not published, so far as I have 
 been able to ascertain, and those most interested were not aware of it 
 until it Was divulged by accident. The committee, of course, when 
 relieved from their labors, desire to " sink the shop" and obtain recre- 
 ation — and would not speak of the business with which they have been 
 burdened in their hours of labor, except by the merest chance. Not 
 a word of testimony, on the part of the public or of individuals, was 
 before the committee to the best of my knowledge, but very distin- 
 guished counsel from the House of Representatives appeared before 
 the committee in Hussey's favor. Under such circumstances it was of 
 course clearly shown that Hussey had not been remunerated. But it 
 might have been very difficult to establish that fact before the Patent 
 Office, where opposing parties have a right not only to call witnesses, 
 but to cross-examine. It may have been made to appear also that 
 the rights of other parties would not be injuriously affected by the 
 extension. It is difficult to guess what may be clearly proved where 
 one party has everything his own way. No one but McCormick had 
 the slightest opportunity to oppose before the committee. The case 
 has been very carefully hidden from public view — and although I have 
 not the means at this moment of rebutting any thing in reference to 
 compensation, &c., I presume the meritorious points of the case jlid not 
 cause the concealment. I do not k)iozv but that a proper case for exten- 
 sion might have been made out in 1847 — but the fact that it was not 
 attempted in any proper way makes me disbelieve it. And now other 
 rights, in good faith, have attached; and even if the extension would 
 have been proper in 1847, it is not so in 1854, But the circumstances 
 indicate that it was never a proper case for extension. No opportunity 
 is afforded for taking or presenting testimony, and I am therefore ' 
 obliged to rely upon what is clearly within the reach of members 
 of Congress. 
 
 " I have stated that this extension is favored by Mr. McCormick, 
 and that if granted it will really be for his benefit — to give him the 
 control of the market, and enable him to crush all others as he has 
 been for years striving to do, with a quarter of a million of dollars 
 which he has made out of his compilation of other men's inventions. 
 His own application for extension smells so rankly, that his name 
 or interest would do any thing rather than help the case; and, there- 
 fore, if he is really opposed to the extension, I shall be entitled 
 to his gratitude for bringing his name into the case to defeat it. 
 
A REVIEW. 89 
 
 If not, he is among the opponents of my clients, and therefore the 
 proper subject of remark in this connection. 
 
 " I was not a witness to any secret arrangement between Hussey 
 and McCormick, and I will state the facts which I know in reference 
 to it, and which every member of Congress may know by making 
 the proper inquiries at the proper places. 
 
 "And first. The Hussey and McCormick machines have been 
 rivals ever since INIcCormick borrowed and compiled enough from 
 his neighbors to make his machine of any value. The comparative 
 trials of the two in Europe and America, and their concurrent use, 
 prove this fact; and prove that McCormick would be, on this ground, 
 the first to oppose this extension if he had not a secret interest in it. 
 The two parties have always had adverse interests. 
 
 " Secondly. If Hussey's patent be renewed, without an understand- 
 ing with McCormick, McCormick's machine could not be built, sold, 
 or used, without infringing Hussey's patent; and Hussey would have 
 the right to enjoin him, and prevent his operations entirely — and 
 recover damages, if McCormick made, sold or used them, or if any 
 person claiming under him did so. So that McCormick's present 
 lucrative trade at his numerous factories would be entirely cut off. 
 
 "Thirdly. McCormick was the only one of those interested in 
 harvesting machines that knew of Hussey's petition — Jie did knoiv it, 
 as almost any member of the Senate committee can testify. And 
 although this extension, if not for his benefit, w^ould shut up his 
 factories or lay him under contributions at the pleasure of Hussey, 
 he does 7wt oppose it, or if there be a sliozv of opposition, it is of that 
 kind w^hich helps on the extension — the opposite of ^' damniiig with 
 faint praise'' — glorifying by faint opposition, which is much more 
 effective than any ^/mr/ support he could give it. He is at this time 
 (after his own extension is finally thrown under the table) here pulling 
 the wires to procure this. 
 
 " Fourthly. It will be found by careful observation that all the 
 stro7ig friends of McCormick's extetision have transferred their zeal to the 
 extC7ision of Hussey. 
 
 " If these circumstances are not sufficient to establish my position, 
 more would be equally ineffectual — but I think they w^ill convince 
 others, as they have convinced me. The conduct of McCormick- 
 is to my mind inexplicable on any other hypothesis. The extension 
 is intended for his benefit, and if granted would enable him to trample 
 on all subsequent inventors and manufacturers, as he has for years 
 been striving to do by an extension of his old patent of 1S34- — which 
 is good for nothing else. With this extension it would be perfectly 
 easy, without the investment of a dollar of capital, except the pittance 
 which is to be paid to Hussey, to extort from subsequent inventors 
 and manufacturers fifty tliousand dollars annually. Not that the inven- 
 tion is worth any such sum, but it would be better for manufacturers 
 to pay it, than to entirely remodel their machines. The cutters used 
 at the present day are improvements upon Hussey's, not what Hussey 
 invented and patented, but they embrace a single feature of his, and 
 would therefore be controlled by his patent. 
 
90 A REVIEW. 
 
 " I think I may safely say that the extension of this patent would 
 be without a parallel in the annals of extensions. I am familiar with 
 the subject of patents, but have no recollection of a single case 
 of extension, where the thing patented was in extensive use, and had 
 been public property for sia: years before the extension. The law 
 presumes that, in fourteen years of exclusive possession, any inventor 
 is properly rewarded, and an extension can never be granted under 
 the spirit of our patent laws, in equal justice to other inventors, 
 except in extraordinary cases. The presumptions are all against the 
 patentee, who has enjoyed' fourteen years of monopoly, and cannot 
 properly be set aside by ex-parte affidavits and statements, where 
 the party has skulked the tribunal provided by law, and refused 
 to subject his case to the scrutiny which it prescribes, but creeps 
 quietly and unobserved to the committee room, with no notice 
 to those whose rights he is attempting stealthily to invade. 
 
 "Mr. Hussey is now a man advanced in years. — His character was 
 long since formed, and we may easily judge from his past what he would 
 be likely to do, left to the promptings of his own mind, at the present 
 time. The fact that he has so long concealed his intention to obtain 
 an extension, proves conclusively that he would not now ask it, unless 
 he has been setting a trap for manufacturers, or has become the cat's 
 paw of a more designing and grasping man; and in either case, I 
 respectfully submit, that his petition should be promptly rejected and 
 dismissed. — If the case had possessed commanding merit, it would at 
 the proper time, have been laid before the tribunal which Congress in its 
 justice, liberality, and providence, has long since established for the 
 extension of patents, where the inventor has, without fault or neglect, 
 failed to obtain the remuneration to which he is reasonably entitled. 
 This Hussey has omitted to do, and the presumptions from this omis- 
 sion and delay are irresistible." 
 
 The learned " counsel " very gravely states, " I was not a zvitness to 
 any secret arrangement between Hussey and McCormick;" yet he 
 charges, and attempts to prove, without producing a single witness 
 what is in itself an absolute absurdity, and by his own showing; that 
 because McCormick " after years of labor before Congress, finding 
 that he cannot get an extension for his worthless patent, is now at 
 Washington pulling the wires, and working for Hussey;" and "has 
 prompted in the most quiet manner the extension of his patent; the 
 opposite of damnini^ zvitJi faint praise, glorifying by faint opposition," 
 in order that he, the veritable Cyrus H. McCormick, the ^'compiler of 
 McCormick's Reaping Machine, with a quarter of a million of dollars, 
 which he has made out of his compilation of other men's inventions," 
 the man "to trample on all subsequent inventors and manufacturers, 
 as he has been for years striving to do, by an extension of his old 
 patent of 1834, which is good for nothing else," may *'\Q.\y black 7naH" 
 on these parties in the State of New York, out of Hussey 's patent! 
 His great rival too, at the " World's Fair in London," and " the two 
 parties who have always had adverse interests." 
 
 So it would seem, the Lion does actually lie down with the Lamb, 
 
A REVIEW. 91 
 
 and all is at Peace! If this idea of a "secret alliance" is not really 
 and truly a "sublime conception," it is simply ridiculous. 
 
 It may be that they Jiave been in some sort rivals in Reaping the 
 golden harvest fields of the South, the East, and the fertile prairies of 
 the great West; and we believe they have even crossed the broad At- 
 lantic to exhibit their prowess and skill, and "astonish the natives" on 
 English soil. But we never before heard of any " secret alliance," any 
 conspiracy to rob others, and then " to share the spoils." 
 
 Nor have we yet heard that any one of these " parties in the State 
 of New York" represented their country at the "World's Fair in 
 London;" or have added a particle to the wide spread fame and re- 
 nown acquired there for American ingenuity and inventive talent, that 
 swept over this continent with lightning speed, and was hailed with 
 delight, and with feelings of national pride, from one end of the Union 
 to the other. 
 
 Where w^r^ these " parties in the State of New York " all this time, 
 with their "valuable improvements on Hussey's patent," when the 
 London Times and other kindred prints were jeering and taunting us 
 with sending " tread mills " and " flying machines " to the " Exhibition 
 of the Industry of all Nations?" 
 
 W'ere they engaged in concocting this scheme to deprive an honest 
 inventor of his honestly acquired and legal rights? Or were they not 
 employed in adding to the aforesaid " millions " by " springing the 
 trap" in the shape of ''black w^//" on a poor brother inventor and 
 manufacturer, who was compelled to earn his daily bread by the sweat 
 of his brow? 
 
 If the learned " counsel " has had much practice in Courts of 
 Law, he must be aware, that a " zvitness " may sometimes prove too 
 much; or in attempting to prove one thing a little too strong, he may 
 prove quite the opposite. As he appears to have quite a fancy to 
 "cross-examine witnesses," we will bring him on the stand: this is cer- 
 tainly fair, for he has given in his "testimony in open court;" and as 
 this witness has completely failed to prove afty thing for " parties in the 
 State of New York," perhaps he may prove something for a poor 
 patentee — " who is now a man advanced in years," and who " has be- 
 come the cat's-paw of a more designing and grasping man." T\\e.ge?i- 
 erous delight in succouring the aged and oppressed. 
 
 " Teach me to feel another's woe, 
 And ///(/^ the fault I see; 
 That itiercy I to others show, 
 That mercy show to me." 
 
 Does a Plaintiff — a poor man for instance, in an action at common law 
 against a millionaire , lose his " inchoate right," if the case is in litiga- 
 tion for '•' six years?" or for six times six years, and subject to all the 
 glorious uncertainties of the law, by the management of cunning, or 
 the neglect of lazy "counsel?" Is not the entry on the Docket or 
 '' jfojirnal" prima-facie evidence that the case was neither " carefully 
 concealed," nor "abandoned?" Would the learned gentleman con- 
 sider it even handed justice to lose his just debt, because the clerk of 
 
92 A REVIEW. 
 
 the court, by his arbitrary and changeable "rules" refused to docket 
 the case, not having had either '' sixty days,'' " thirty days," or "twenty- 
 one days notice" before court, and of which notice the plaintiff was 
 entirely ignorant? We all kmno a ricli man does not thus lose his 
 " inchoate right;" but with 3. poor man, the case may possibly be dif- 
 ferent. 
 
 If the Patent, and claim for extension have no merit, no originality, 
 as you plainly intimate, and indeed assert, why oppose it, and make 
 such strenuous efforts to defeat it? As counsel well versed in the law, 
 and "familiar with the subject of patents " as you allege, you ^?/^/z^ 
 to know that the parchment even with the signature of the Commis- 
 sioner of Patents, and the "broad seal " attached, does not make it 
 valid. Would not " the courts " promptly set aside all such spurio?is 
 claims? 
 
 You say, " It is found by careful observation, that all the st'Ofig 
 frie?ids of McCormick's extension [meaning of course in both Houses of 
 Congress] have transferred their zeal to the extension of Hussey.." 
 Now admitting this to be true, a single isolated fact surrounded by a 
 mass of fiction, what is the most obvious inference. Is it not strong 
 presumptive evidence, that there is merit \xi the claim, and that all who 
 zvill, can see it? unless we admit, but which the court cannot, that 
 the members of Congress are all a set of turn-coats, and devoid of 
 principle. 
 
 Again, you say, " with this extension it would be perfectly easy, 
 without the investment of a dollar of capital, except the pittance to 
 be paid to Hussey, for McCormick to extort from subsequent in- 
 ventors and va3in.\\ia.cXurQVS fifty tJiousa?id dollars annually." Do not the 
 words subsequent inventors, twice repeated in the same paragraph, im- 
 ply an antecedent, and that even you^ consider " Hussey " a previous 
 inventor, and having a prior claim? True, you also state, " not that 
 the invention is worth any such sum, but it would be better for the 
 manufacturers to pay it.^than to entirely remodel their machines." 
 Now will you please -explain to the court why, and how it is, when you 
 say " no man's rights are infringed," that it is better to pay ''fifty thou- 
 sa?id dollars ' annually, than to make a slight alteration — to change a 
 "single feature" in their machines, and use their ozvfi inventions only? 
 Why, if "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," rnust 
 be told, "The cutters used at the present day, are improvements upon 
 Hussey's, not what Hussey invented and patented, but they 'embody 
 some of the general features' — 'embrace some of the elements' — eni- 
 brace a sitigle feature of his, and would therefore be controlled by his 
 patent." !! 
 
 Ah! this looks like coming to the point — no evasion, no subter- 
 fuge here; "one more question, and you may come down Sir." As 
 you appear to be quite " familiar" with such subjects, will you have 
 the goodness to explain to the Court, of how many " elements," 
 " general features," or single features," these said " cutters," ''origi?ial 
 and improved," consist of? No answer!— ^Well sir, as a witness is not 
 bound by law to criminate himself, we will waive this question; you 
 
A REVIEW. . 93 
 
 no doubt, like other counsel, find it much more convenient to ask, than 
 to anszvcr some questions. 
 
 You have repeatedly spoken of " black mail;" do you understand 
 it to mean, paying money as an equivalentto another man, for the use 
 of his invention or patent? Have your " clients," — the " principle of 
 them," who are the assignees of a poor patentee, ever " sued," " en- 
 joined," or " levied black mair' on others, — those who attempted, or 
 made use of their " improvements upon Hussey's patent? Is not the 
 true and only cause of all your opposition to Hussey's extension, the 
 desire on your part to "skulk the /w/^'r tribunal," and thus avoid pay- 
 ing even the most reasonable and just compensation to him, whom 
 you know, and admit, to be the true and original inventor of the most 
 valuable " feature" in the machine, while at the same time you unhesi- 
 tatingly and unscrupulously "sue," "enjoin," and " levy black 7naH" on 
 others, and without a blush, coolly pocket the proceeds? 
 
 We think we have heard of this "counsel" before; and would 
 respectfully ask him if he is not now employed by Howard & Com- 
 pany, these "parties in the State of New York," in sueing, enjoiinng, 
 and levying "black mail" at this present time on a manufacturer in 
 New Jersey, for an alleged infringement of their " bent arm f — and to 
 which they probably have about as much legitimate claim of inven- 
 tive principle," as has Santa Anna, " by the grace of God," to the 
 throne of the Montezumas'. 
 
 Can the intelligent reader fail to see, and most clearly, that so far 
 as the reasons, — for arguments they cannot be justly termed — which 
 are here assigned, and designed by these parties to defeat this exten- 
 sion, go to establish the fact, that Hussey is the original inventor of 
 this most important " element," this "feature" in the guard and cut- 
 ting apparatus, and so much coveted, that renders their machine a 
 practical and available implement? Such is certainly the fact. And 
 do they not show, impotent and lame as they are for their intended 
 object, that the whole drift and intent of the nefarious scheme is to fill 
 their own pockets at his, and the farmer's expense, regardless alike of 
 law, and every principle of justice and fair dealing? It must be re- 
 garded by every disinterested and unprejudiced tribunal, as a lawless, 
 rapacious, and most unfeeling attempt to consummate an act of the 
 grossest injustice. 
 
 How does all that we have quoted, accord with what we find on 
 page 7 of this singular production? That, "Inventors should be 
 treated justly and even kindly, and a degree of indulgence should be 
 extended to them where their rights are concerned!" — which simply 
 means we suppose, if it means anything, "we want your property, 
 Wright or wrong, and are determined to execute you; but will provide 
 a soft silke?i cord, that will appear a little more decent and merciful." 
 But the texture of the cloak thrown over to hide its nakedness is so 
 flimsy and thin, and withal so poorly woven together, that it falls to 
 pieces almost by its own specific gravity, — it only the more clearly 
 shows its deformity: — is but " a cloak of covetousness." 
 
 To show the just appreciation of this great invention, we have pre- 
 
94: A REVIEW. 
 
 viously quoted from high and official authority, the Hon. Edmund 
 Burke: and it is sustained by the concurrent testimony and opinion of 
 the civilized world. From the same high authority we will quote, to 
 show a propet appreciation of the rights of inventors, and of the lawless 
 and unprincipled depredators on those rights. 
 
 Patent Office Rep. 1846, page 9. 
 
 " In connexion with the revision and amendment, of the present 
 patent laws, I would remark that, in my judgment, some additions to 
 the present enactments are necessary for the more effectual encour- 
 agement and protection of inventors and patentees, 
 
 " The existing laws, while professing to give to the inventor the 
 exclusive enjoyment of his invention for the term of fourteen years, 
 do, in fact, afford to him but very little protection. The fruits of his 
 genius and his toils are constantly liable to be wrested from him by the 
 unscrupulous and dishonest, who, too often countenanced by public 
 opinion, are apt to regard the rights of the inventor as the fruits of a 
 monopoly which it is a merit instead of a wrong to break down and 
 destroy; and the more valuable the invention, the more liable is the 
 patentee to this species of invasion and injury, as there is more induce- 
 ment held out to its perpetration. The stealthy thief and the mid- 
 night burglar are justly regarded as the pests and enemies of society, 
 and are therefore seized and punished by penalties severe in propor- 
 tions to the turpitude of their crimes; yet their depredations are com- 
 mitted on things which are made by law the subjects of property, and 
 which may be acquired by industry or by purchase. The right of the 
 inventor to his invention, in the judgment of all enlightened minds, 
 cannot but be viewed as far more sacred than mere things of property. 
 It is a mental creation, or rather the discovery of a principle or thing 
 never before known to the world, and may be, and very many inven- 
 tions have been, often productive of countless blessings to the human 
 family, affecting their destinies as individuals and as communities 
 through all time. When the wonderful discoveries of a Watt, a Ful- 
 ton, a Whitney, and an Arkwright, and the great results to individuals 
 and to nations which have followed from them, are contemplated, it is 
 not difficult to realize the value of the splendid gifts which science, 
 through their instrumentality, has bestowed upon man, nor to estimate 
 the claims which the true inventor has upon society. He may truly 
 be called the pioneer of civilization, the explorer of the unknown 
 world of science and art. And yet how many of those truly great 
 benefactors to their race have fallen victims to ingratitude and wrong, 
 and gone down to their graves in penury and sorrow. The case of 
 Ely Whitney, our countryman, the inventor of the cotton gin, is but 
 one among innumerable instances in which the fruits of splendid gen- 
 ius have been wrested from its possessor by the unprincipled depre- 
 dator upon patent rights. It is familiar to all that that great inventor, 
 whose name stands out like a bright and lustrous star in the constel- 
 lation of genius, was compelled to expend all the profits of his inven- 
 tion in fruitless efforts to protect it from infringement, and finally died 
 a victim to debt and disappointment. 
 
A REVIEW. 95 
 
 " Many valuable inventions are now used in secret and kept from 
 the world, on account of the impunity with which patent rights can be 
 infringed ; secrecy being a better protection to the inventor than the law. 
 
 " These reflections are indulged in with a view to awaken in the 
 public mind a proper estimate of the value of the toils and labor of 
 the inventor, and of his claims to full and effectual protection in the 
 enjoyment of the fruits of his genius and skill, and to enforce with 
 more emphasis the suggestions which I deem it my duty to submit in 
 relation to such amendments of the law as may be necessary for the 
 security of the rights of inventors. The principal difficulties which 
 the patentee has to encounter, under the present laws, in enforcing his 
 rights, arise from two circumstances: first, from the fact that the ques- 
 tion of originality may be raised on every trial for infringement; and, 
 secondly, the almost total inefficacy of the existing law to prevent in- 
 fringement. 
 
 " In every application, the question of the originality of the inven- 
 tion is thoroughly investigated by the Patent Office; and as it is 
 decided affirmatively or negatively, the patent is issued or denied. 
 If the patent is granted, it is very properly (as the office cannot 
 claim infallibility) deemed by the law o\\\y prima facie evidence 
 of the originality of the invention, and of the right of the patentee 
 to recover damages for infringement of his claim. Yet there 
 should be some point at which this question should be deemed as con- 
 clusively settled, and'the right of the patentee to recover made abso- 
 lute, or the patent declared to be a nullity. Yet, under the existing 
 laws, such is not the fact; and although4:he question of originality may 
 have been decided by twenty juries, in as many different trials, it is 
 just as much open to dispute in all subsequent trials. 
 
 " This difficulty in the way of the patentee to recover for infringe- 
 ments, in cases in which the invention is a very valuable one, and the 
 infringer a wealthy corporation, amounts almost to an insuperable one, 
 as he is kept in the law, and harassed by litigation, until the term for 
 which his patent runs, expires; and he is left without adequate remu- 
 neration for his invention, and sometimes made poorer than when he 
 commenced the fruitless attempt to vindicate his rights by an appeal 
 to the law for redress." 
 
 Pat. Off. R. 1847, pages 7 and 9. 
 
 " In my former reports I have recommended a change in some of 
 the features of the patent law as it now exists. For the nature of 
 those recommendations, and the reasons on which they are founded, 
 I would respectfully refer to the annual reports of this office, for 1845 
 and 1846. In my judgment the changes proposed are necessary to 
 give adequate security to that valuable and meritorious class of our 
 citizens engaged in inventive pursuits. As the law now is, the reme- 
 dies which it affords to patentees are, in most cases, inadequate to the 
 protection of their rights and the prevention of infringement upon 
 them by that unscrupulous and unprincipled class of persons, who 
 make it a practice willfully to depredate upon patent rights, and who, 
 from the basely criminal character of the offence which they commit. 
 
96 A REVIEW. 
 
 are stigmatized by the application to them of the infamous epithet of 
 pirate. Certainly, adequate protection should be given to the honest 
 inventor who devotes his substance and his incessant toil for the ben- 
 efit of society, against the freebooters who invade without scruple his 
 property, which, to him, is more sacred and invaluable, because it is 
 the cherished creation of his own genius. 
 
 " But while his exclusive property in his invention exists, it must 
 be considered that the inventor has a right to demand of the Govern- 
 ment, the most ample security and protection in its enjoyment. This 
 security and protection he does not, under our present imperfect sys- 
 tem, enjoy. On the contrary, the difficulty and expense, and the ab- 
 solute impossibility, in some cases, of vindicating his rights, have ren- 
 dered the present laws enacted for his protection, almost absolute 
 nullities. To remedy this imperfection in the existing system, is the 
 object of the amendments of the patent laws, proposed in the two 
 former reports of the undersigned. 
 
 " While the steam engine, most potent of all the creations of gen- 
 ius, is daily coursing before our eyes, wafting us upon the wings of 
 the wind its precious freight of human life, and its countless treasures 
 of industry and commerce; while the mysterious telegraph speedsour 
 thoughts with the swiftness of lightning which is its obedient aud 
 trusty messenger; while magnificent manufactories stud our land, stun- 
 ning but delighting us with the never-ceasing movement of their won- 
 der-working machinery, it seems unnecessary to remark upon the 
 incalculable value of the labors of the inventor and his claims upon 
 society for protection in the enjoyment of his* just rights. And, 
 sooner or later, the undersigned is confident they will be fully recog- 
 nized and protected by the enlightened legislators of a great repub- 
 lic, whose progress has been so much accelerated by their genius and 
 enterprise." 
 
 Patent of^ce Rep. 1849 — '50> Comm. Ewbank. 
 
 "With respect to the modification of the patent laws, I beg leave 
 to refer to the able reports of my immediate predecessor; whose views 
 as to the necessity of giving further security to inventors, accorded 
 with my own, and to whose forcible language on the subject I can add 
 nothing. It is admitted that all legislation which has in view the se- 
 curity of an exclusive right, is intended to guard the public good 
 against a violation of the faith reposed in its bestowal. That, on the 
 other hand, it is equally the duty of the legislature, if it deems proper 
 to extend to individuals or corporations such right on certain condi- 
 tions, to protect them in its enjoyment. That such in a greater or less 
 degree is not the case in regard to inventors must be obvious to those 
 who have been conversant with the operation of the patent laws now 
 in force. It is not expected, in view of their modification, that a per- 
 fection can be attained which will meet every emergency; but the 
 least which should be done is to apply a remedy whenever an object 
 designed by enactment, is defeated in its operation. 
 
 "Some years of experience seem to have illustrated the inoperative 
 effect of the law intended to secure the inventor in the enjoyment of 
 
A REVIEW. 97 
 
 his privilege. Were all men equally capable of producing, fewer 
 would be found engaged in plundering inventions which belong to 
 his neighbor. Such, however, not being the case, unfortunately the 
 lack of inventive talent is in many instances supplied only by the de- 
 sire for gain, and ingenuity in attaining it, at the sacrifice of the real 
 machinist. 
 
 " The public mind, interested in the progress of the arts, as fos- 
 tered by the establishment of this office, is now turned towards a 
 remedy of the evil; and to the undersigned it seems but justice that 
 the remedy should be applied. 
 
 " Inadequacy of protection, is what is chiefly complained of — the 
 violation of a right as sacred as any personal possession, without the 
 remedy guaranteed against a petty larceny. It is manifestly unjust 
 that the time and means of the inventor should be expended in de- 
 fending that which Government accords as peculiarly his own, in 
 every instance where a willful trespasser is called upon to respond in 
 damages for infringement. He is thus subjected to all the horrors of 
 interminable and ruinous litigation; and, if his assailants are more 
 fortunate in having the means of attack than he of defence, his case 
 is hopeless, and he may be likened, as once were chancery clients, to 
 sheep that, having taken shelter in the hedge, come forth " piteously 
 complaining," leaving their fleece upon the bush. 
 
 " It may be contended that all other titles to property are justh' 
 subject to investigation without limitation; — and that an exception in 
 this instance would be a departure from the well settled principles of 
 practice and law. The argument might be good, were all property 
 equally the result of mental creation and equally susceptible of public 
 invasion. Unlike a chattel, it can be stolen by one, or a thousand, and 
 by all at the same time. Its appropriation by one interposes no ob- 
 stacle to its larceny by another, and thus the inventor is subject to 
 be plundered by every person who chooses to violate his right. He 
 appeals to the law for redress, and the remedy he adopts proves to 
 be one of self-immolation." 
 
 The foregoing views, alike just as they are to inventors, and hon- 
 orable to the intelligent and independent minds so conversant with 
 the subject, must strike the reader as peculiarly applicable to this 
 case: — where an inventor after unremitting toil and privation for a 
 long course of years,— ►now near a quarter of a century — has com- 
 pletely succeeded in perfecting, and introducing into general use one 
 of the most useful and valuable improvements of this, or indeed 
 of any age, and when he might now derive some advantage there- 
 from in his declining years, his motives and private character are 
 ruthlessly assailed, his rights infringed on, and a barefaced attempt 
 made by special pleading, insinuations, and perversion of facts, to de- 
 prive him of his rights altogether; and we leave it to the judgment of 
 the reader to decide, whether in the language of the Hon. Edmund 
 Burke, it is done " by that unscrupulous and unprincipled class of 
 persons, who make it a practice wilfully to depredate upon patent 
 rights, and who from the basely criminal character of the offence 
 
 7 
 
90 A REVIEW. 
 
 which they commit, are stigmatized by the application to them of the 
 infamous epithet ol pirate." 
 
 There are, however, some honest manufacturers — and we make the 
 statement with both pride and pleasure — who do acknowledge Hu^sey's 
 rights, without being " sued and enjoined " by paying him a very mod- 
 erate fee for the use of his patent; not averaging one third, if one- 
 fourth, of the charge usually made by others. 
 
 As to shutting up other manufactories, or even these " vast estab- 
 lishments," as alleged by this " counsel," the idea is just as chimerical 
 and absurd as the attempt would be futile. No man of sane mind 
 would for a single moment think of such a thing. Such a course 
 would be diametrically opposed to an inventor's best interest. Nor 
 can any one desire to interfere with tJicir " improvements upon Hus- 
 sey's patent," or to prevent their realizing a "million of dollars " out 
 of it; but is there even a show of reason, right, or justice, that they 
 should take his patent also, without some equivalent — some return for 
 the advantages it confers? We know of no Law '^Higher," or Com- 
 mon, Moral, or Statute, which recognizes such a principle, or confers 
 any such right. 
 
 This learned " counsel " has clearly failed to establish his position 
 hy four of his lazvs. There is yet another Law — the Christian or Divine 
 Law, which is the best law of all. He " may know by making the 
 proper enquiries at the proper places " what are its provisions. No 
 special p/eading- can mystiiy it — no sophistry can change its meaning, 
 or escape from its penalties; its enactments are of universal applica- 
 tion, and as unalterable as the " everlasting Hills." As he appears 
 far from being " familiar"with laws of modern date, he is perhaps much 
 less conversant with those of ancient origin. We commend these 
 " parties in the State of New York " — their " counsel " of course in- 
 cluded, to two sections particularly, of " Acts "* passed about two thou- 
 sand years ago; nor have they yet been repealed to our knowledge. 
 Indeed, we may find some good "r///^.y " established more than tJiree 
 thousand yQdilS ago; — such as, "Thou shalt not bear false witness 
 against thy neighbor " — " Thou shalt not cov^t thy neighbor's house 
 — thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor 
 his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neigh- 
 bor's. But to the two sections of the "Acts" passed Anno Domini 
 31 and 33. 
 
 Sec. 12. " Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men 
 should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the 
 prophets. " 
 
 Sec. 20. "And he saith unto them. Whose /.y this image and super- 
 scription? They say unto him, 'Cesars. Then saith he unto them, 
 Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesars." 
 
 As this " counsel" has very considerately and kindly prepared a 
 petition for the patentee, thinking no doubt he was too "ignorant" 
 for that, as well as of the " sixty days rule," we will return the com- 
 pliment. He states: 
 
A REVIEW, 
 
 99 
 
 ■' His track thus being entirely covered, 
 he proceeds with equal secresy to Con- 
 gress with his petition, and his wretched 
 excuse about ignorance of the sixty (fays' 
 rule— but without any excuse for his de- 
 lay till ten days before the expiration of 
 his patent — it adnaitted of none — and 
 prayed an extension by their extraordi- 
 nary interposition. His petition r,?art'(^j' 
 t/ie light shed upon it by the facts, is as 
 follows:" 
 
 " To the Honorable the United States 
 Senate and House of Representatives. 
 
 " The petition of Obed Hussey respect- 
 * fully represents: 
 
 "That your petitioner has, within the 
 last six weeks, attempted secretly to ob- 
 tain an extension of his patent, in viola- 
 tion of law, by eluding all means of that 
 examination into the facts which the law 
 requires — but has been unsuccessful. He, 
 therefore, prays that your honorable body 
 will exercise its extraordinary legislative 
 power, to aid him in this laudable under- 
 taking. 
 
 " Your petitioner would have applied 
 in reasonable time to the proper tribunal, 
 and submitted to the proper investiga- 
 tions, but feared his case would not bear 
 the light. Your honorable body, how- 
 ever, can proceed iLiithout notice to the 
 public, and your petitioner will thus be 
 screened from impertinent investiga- 
 tions." 
 
 "Hussey's first petition to Congress 
 was presented about 6 weeks after his 
 conversation with the Commissioner 
 above mentioned. I am not aware that 
 it was known outside of the walls of the 
 Capitol by any one but C. H. McCormick. 
 — The committee of the Senate reported 
 favorably to the applicant, but the com- 
 mittee of the House did not — and no ex- 
 tension was granted." 
 
 Note — In this paragraph there is clearly 
 an intended deception. The counsel 
 knew perfectly well, that the Petition 
 was not acted on by the Senate in 1848, 
 although favorably reported on; and of 
 cour. e the "Committee of the House" 
 could not ■Ac'iw^ioxi it, until the bill was 
 passed by the Senate at the first session 
 of the present Congress. If the subse- 
 quent paragraph does not prove this de- 
 signed to deceive, it certainly does prove 
 that "if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be 
 wise." 
 
 Their petiton " read by the light shed 
 upon it by the facts, is as follows:" 
 
 To the Honorable the United States 
 Senate and House of Representatives. 
 
 The petition of W. N. P. Fitzgerald, 
 counsel for parties in the State of New 
 York, &c., &c. 
 
 That your petitioners profess to have 
 " invested millions of dollars*" in the 
 manufacture of machines, and are now 
 making "vast sums of money" by the 
 sale of them. 
 
 We know very well, and indeed have 
 always known that Mr. Obed Hussey's 
 invention does " embody some of the gen- 
 eral features," — " embrace some of the 
 elements of the patent sought to be ex- 
 tended " — to be more explicit, it certain- 
 ly does " embrace a single feature " in 
 the " cutters " used in our machines, that 
 we cannot do without; for we never 
 could invent anything ourselves. 
 
 We are also well advised that Mr. Hus- 
 sey has devoted many years to perfect 
 and introduce his machines into use; — 
 just in time for us to make money by his in- 
 vention — and although he has made but 
 little by it himself, he " is now a man ad- 
 vanced in years," and you know that 
 such a 
 
 " Man wants but little here below. 
 Nor wants that little long; " 
 and as your petitioner are young in years, 
 and in this business, and greatly desire 
 to "become speedily rich," they there- 
 fore pray " your honorable body will ex- 
 ercise its extraordinary legislative power 
 to aid them in their laudable undertak- 
 ing." Your petitioners would hold out 
 the idea to Congress, and to the "inno- 
 cent public," that it is solely and exclu- 
 sively for the benefit of the Farmer and 
 for the "public good" that they have 
 erected these " vast establishments," and 
 " have [Perhaps] invested their entire 
 means." 
 
 Again, "be it remembered," that said 
 Hussey " has become the cats-paw of a 
 more designing and grasping man," who 
 is very adroit "in pulling the wires;" 
 and also that some others have made 
 large fortunes by infringing on Hussey's 
 patent — and which we are striving to do, 
 without paying him a single dollar as 
 'black mail ;' and it would be gross injus- 
 tice to your petitioners not to allow them 
 the same, and an equal privilege. We 
 do not like to pay any ourselves, but con- 
 sider it perfectly right and fair to levy 
 " black fnail" on others, who infringe on 
 our "improvement on Hussey's patent." 
 Our motto, as you cannot fail to perceive, 
 is wolinore JHst\\\2LV\. pafriofic ; "millions 
 for defence, not a cent for tribute." 
 
100 
 
 A REVIEW. 
 
 In the identical language of this counsel, we now add, " If these 
 circumstances," — i. e., plain honest statement of facts, and proof, with 
 the simple questions and unavoidable answers that must be given — 
 *' are not sufficient to establish my [our] position, more would be 
 equally ineffectual! " 
 
 We think enough has been shown to convince every Member of 
 Congre«5S — nay, every honest hearted and right minded Farmer and 
 Mechanic in the country who may chance to see these pages, that 
 Obed Hussey's claim is an honest and a iust one. Nor do we think 
 any disinterested person can read these mo^t unprovoked and unwar- 
 rantable charges against the character and claims of a worthy and 
 unassuming citizen without some feeling of indignation. Have we 
 really arrived at this state of " progress?" — that an honest mechanic 
 of the country — one who has conferred more solid advantages on his 
 fellow man at home, more fame and renown upon his country 
 abroad, than all the Lobby-Lawyers that ever did, or ever will 
 exist to beset the Halls of Legislation, backed too, by the assign- 
 ees of another poor man's Patent — cannot apply to Congress for 
 sheer justice, but his private character is aspersed, his motives im- 
 pugned, and his rights sought to be trampled under foot? and by a 
 few capitalists who owe their prosperity solely to the inventive 
 genius and talents of this very man. It is an outrage on justice, and 
 every principle of honorable and fair dealing. 
 
 But to the sense of justice of Congress, and to public opinion, 
 which rarely fails to arrive at right and just conclusions, we fearlessly 
 and confidently leave the decision of the whole question. That it will 
 be rightly decided, we cannot entertain a doubt. 
 
 
 First American Beaper— Hussey, 1S33. 
 
Notary Publics Certificate 
 
 state of miinoie, { 
 
 County of Du Page. \ 
 
 ss. 
 
 I, JAY P. SMITH, a NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the County and 
 State aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing, carefully read 
 by me, is a true and complete and correct copy of the pamphlets entitled 
 "A Brief Narrative of the Invention of Reaping Machines;" "Hussey's Reaping 
 and Mowing Machines in England," and a •' Review of the Pamphlet of 
 W. N. P. Fitzgerald. In opposition to the Extension of The Patent of 
 Obed Hussey," bearing the dates 1854 and 1855 respectively, on the title pages. 
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and NOTARIAL 
 SEAL, this 19th day of March. A. D. 1897, 
 
 JAY P. SMITH. 
 
MiSHAWAKA, Indiana, March 28, 1 897. 
 
 JOHN F. Steward, Esq.. 
 
 Chicago, Hi. 
 
 Dear Sir: Yours of 25th inst. has been received. Edward Stabler 
 was for many years a friend to whom I was indebted for many friendly acts. 
 I was for 25 years attorney for Whitely, Fassler & Kelley, and was therefore 
 intimately acquainted v/ith Reaping and Mowing Machines. On that account 
 I assisted Edward Stabler in some patent matters in which the estate of 
 Obed Hussey. was interested. Our conversations about Harvesting Machines 
 were frequent and I know from himself, not only the deep friendship he had 
 for Obed Hussey, but also that he was the author of the pamphlets and that 
 he had assisted Mr. Hussey in many other ways. He gave me the pamphlets 
 when 'they were already long out of print and rare. For that reason I would 
 rather not part with them. If they shall ever be required for proof, they will 
 be forthcoming, and you will know where to find them. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 R. D. O. SMITH, 
 
DOCUMENTS 
 
 ON THE FILES OF THE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS OF THE HOUSE 
 OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Relaiing to the refusal of the Board of Extensioii to extend C. H. 
 McCormick^s patent for the Reaping machine, and to the publica- 
 tion, by <tuthority, that McCormick^s, Hussey''s, and Moore Sf 
 HascaW s patents had expired, and become public property ; and 
 showing that neither Moore 4* Hascall, nor Hussey, filed any appli- 
 cation for an extensio7i of their respective patents. 
 
 Minutes of proceedings and decision of Board of Extension on C. H. 
 McCormick^s application, showing that evidence was examined, 
 not EXCLUDED, and case decided on its merits, not on techni- 
 calities. 
 
 The United States Patent Office. 
 
 To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting; 
 
 This is to certify, that the annexed is a true copy from the records 
 of this oflBce. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I, Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
 
 have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto 
 
 , , affixed, this twenty sixth day of May, in the year of our 
 
 •■ '-I Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifiysix, and of the 
 
 independence of the United States the eightieth. 
 
 C. MASON. 
 
 Jn the matter of the application of C. H. McCormick for an exten 
 sion of his patent for a Reaping machine. 
 
 The Board met, agreeably to published notice, on the third Monday 
 (2l8t) in March, 1848, and adjourned to Wednesday, the 23d. 
 
 March 23d, 1848. — Board met pursuant to adjournment. Present, 
 James Buchanan, Secretary of State; Edmund Burke, Commissioner 
 of Patents; and R. H. Gillet, Solicitor of the Treasury; and— 
 
 Ordered, That the further hearing of this application be postponed 
 to Wednesday, the 29th of March, and that tlie said McCormick b© 
 directed to* furnish satisfactory testimony that the invention of iii» 
 machine was prior to the invention of a similar machine by Obed 
 Hussey; and that he be directed to give due notice to the said Hussey 
 of the time and place of taking said testimony. 
 
 March 2^th, 1848. — Board met agreeable to adjournment. Present, 
 James Buchanan, Secretary of State; Edmund Burke, Commissioner 
 
2 
 
 of Patents; andR. H . Gillel, Solicitor of llie 'l"'rcastiiy ; :\,\i\,'* /tnoiurr 
 examined the evidence (uldneed in the case, (lociilt^ ihal saul paitMl 
 oughi not to be extended. JAMES BUCHAMAN, 
 
 Sect etanj of Slate 
 EDMUM) RUKKC. 
 
 (Jum'r of Patents 
 H. H. CILLE'r, 
 
 Sofrofthe Treasury. 
 
 V^-^ 
 
 Sworn statement of R. H. Gillet, a tneniber of Board of Extension, 
 showing'' that McCorniick''s testimony was consiueued, a)id his 
 application, decided on its ivjekits. 
 
 Washing TON, 2d May, 1856. 
 P. H. Watson, Esq. 
 
 Sir: You have requested nie \o give my recollection of llie proceed- 
 ings b'efore the lioard of Extension, of vvliich I v^as, as Solicitor of the 
 Treasury, a member, on the petition of Cyrus H. McCormick for the 
 extension of his patent for a Reaping machme. 
 
 1 now proceed to do so, after refreshing my memory by referring to 
 certified copies of the paf)ers then before the board, 'liie hearing, 
 under the notice, was fixed for the 21st February, 1848. We had be- 
 fore us the report of Charles G. Page, examiner, stating, among othei' 
 things, that McCormick's patent included matters found in one of an 
 older date issued to Obed Hussey. Mr. Hiissey filed objections to the 
 extension. Mr. McCormick had filed the affidavits of several persons, 
 which appeared to have been taken on llie 17th of February, 1848, 
 
 Owing, as 1 presume, to the engagements of the Secretary of State, 
 (Mr. Buchanan,) the hearing was postponed to the 23d: on which day 
 the board met, and the affidavits filed by Mr. McCormick were exam- 
 ined, and, being ex parte, were deemed illegal or improper. The board 
 thereupon gave direction as follows: "Ordered, that the further hearing 
 of this application be postponed to Wednesday, the 29!h of Marcfi, 
 and that the said McCormick be directed to furnish satisfactory testi- 
 mony that the invention of his machine was prior to tlie inventuni of a 
 similar machine by Obed Hussey; and that he be directed to give due no- 
 lice to the said Hussey of tlie time and place of taking said icsiimony." 
 
 At the hearing on the 29th of March, testimony was before us, pur- 
 porting to have been taken on the 18ih of March, in Virginia, on notice 
 to Hussey, and in which it was recited that he (HusseyJ attended and 
 cross-examined the witnesses. 'J'his testimony was not objected to by 
 the board or Hussey, in his written aigumcni, as improper oi illegal, 
 nor was il ruled out, but was considered and acted (jpnn. 
 
 The board also had before it a written argument by Hussey — a re- 
 
monstrance — purporting to have been signed by a large number of 
 citizens of Monroe county, New York, and a siaienient prepared at the 
 Patent Office, purporting to ?ho\v the amount of McCormick's receipts 
 on account of his patent, with an indefinite siatemeni of expenditures 
 made by him. On this hearing the board rejecied the apphcation. 
 The record of the proceedings was drawn up at the Patent Office, and 
 was subsequently signed, and contains the following: 
 
 '^March29thf 1818. — Board met agreeable to adjournment. Pre- 
 sent, James Buchanan, Secretary of Slate; Edmund Burke, Commis- 
 sioner of Palenis, and R. H. Gillei, Solicitor of the Treasury; and 
 having examined ihe evidence adduced in the case, decide that said 
 patent ought not to be extended " 
 
 In this record, as drawn up and signed, there are two errors in dates, 
 in stating that the first and second meetings were in March, instead of 
 February, as appears by the memorandums on the certified envelope, 
 and by other papers. 
 
 On the final hearing the question of extension was decided upon it& 
 merits, and not upon technicalities, or by throwing out testimony takea; 
 on notice pursuant to the order of the board. No motion was made 
 by McCormick for further time, or to correct informalities. I observe, 
 by a printed docuirient, that one of my colleagues supposes McCor- 
 mick's testimony was ruled out because it was informally taken. He 
 has evidently confounded the testimony taken on notice with that taken 
 ex parte, which was actually ruled out. I am the more certain of this,; 
 from having a distinct recollection of the grounds of my own action in 
 the case, and of views expressed by one of my colleagues as the ground 
 of his action. 
 
 Very respect fuliv, youis,> 
 
 R. H. GILLET 
 
 District of Columbia, 55; 
 
 Ransom H. Gillet, of the city of Washington, being duly sworn, 
 doth depose and say, that he truly believes that the annexed letter to 
 P. H. Watson is, in all respects, just and true. 
 
 .R. H. GILLET. . 
 
 Sworn before me this fifth day of May, 1856. 
 
 WM. R. WOODWARD, y. P. 
 
 (3.) 
 Sworn ^ statement of Examiner, Charles G. Page, showing thai 
 McCormick is not origin .\l and first inventor of machine 
 patented in 1834. 
 
 Washington, May I2th, 1856 
 Sir: At your i^equest I will proceed to state the extent of my official 
 participation in the refusal to extend Cyrus H. McCormick's patent of 
 
lilstJuoe, 1834, for alleged improvements in Reaping and Mowing 
 machines. At the time of McCormick's application for extension, i 
 was chief examiner of patents, and had been for six years in charge of 
 the subject of Reaping and Mowing machines. It was the practice of 
 the Patent Office at that time to refer applications for extension to the 
 examiner for his investigation, and report upon the novelty of the in- 
 vention at the time of the grant of the patent. The question of remu- 
 neratiorf, and others touching the extension, were not referred to the 
 examiner; but all papers belonging to the case were examined cleri- 
 cally by him prior to the action of the board. Upon examination of 
 the novelty of McCormiok's invention, I found that he had been fully 
 anticipated in prior patents granted to others, and reported to th^Com- 
 mlssioner of Patents, as follows: 
 
 ''Patent Office, Jan. 22, 1848. 
 
 "Sir: Incompliance with your requisition, I have examined the 
 patent of Cyrus H. McCormick, dated 21st June, 1834, and found that 
 ihe principal features embraced in said patent, viz: the cutting-knife 
 and mode of operating it, the fingers to guide the grain and the revolv- 
 ing rack for gathering the grain, were not new at the time of granting 
 said letters potent. The knife, fingers and general arrangement and 
 operation of the cutting apparatus were found in the Reaping machine 
 Of O. Hussey, patented Dec. Slst, 1833. 
 
 ' "The revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its operation 
 16 similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, patented 2d 
 November, 1825. 
 
 •'Respectfully submitted. 
 
 "CHAS. G. ?kGE, Examiner. 
 »*Hon. Edmund Burke, Corner of Patents.^'' 
 
 The opinion held by the Patent Office at that time was, that the 
 subjects of McCormick's claims differed in no substantial particulars 
 from previous inventions, and that if he had applied for a patent for his 
 reaper subsequent to the act of July 4, 1836, his patent could not have 
 been- granted, except upon proof of priority of invention; and that 
 whatever remuneration he had received was principally for inventions 
 previously patented by others. 
 
 1 have reason to believe that McCormick's case had a full and 
 patient hearing at the Patent Office, and unusual indulgence from the 
 Board of Extension; nor did I ever hear, during the pendency of his 
 application, nor do 1 now believe, that he had not ample time and op- 
 portunity for establishing his claiiHa. 
 
 I have no reason, whatever, for changing my opinion, expressed 
 officially to the Commissioner when McCormick's application for an 
 extension was pending before the board, that he was not the original 
 and first inventor of any material and important part of the mechanism 
 of the machine described in his patent of 1834. On the contrary, I 
 have abundant reason for believing that opinion to be correct, and that 
 
it does McCormick no injuslice, even if the patent of Hussey be [eft 
 entirely out of the question, and reference is had solely lo those of 
 previous date. CHAS. G. PAGE. 
 
 To P. H. Watson, Esq., Washington, D. C. 
 
 City and County op Washington, D. C, $s: 
 
 On this twelfth day of May, 1856, before the subscriber, a justice of 
 the peace in and for said county, personally appeared Chas. G. Page, 
 and made solemn oath that the foregoing statement, signed by him, is 
 true, to the best of his belief and knowledge. 
 
 JOHN S. HOLLINGSHEAD, /. P. 
 
 (4.) 
 Extract from the act entitled '' An act in addition to the act to pro- 
 mote the progress of science and useful arts. ^* Approved, March 
 '3d, 1837. 
 
 "Section 14. And be ii further enacted, That • • • • • 
 and the commissioner is hereby authorized, (fcc, • • • audit 
 shall also be his duty to lay before Congress, in the month of January, 
 annually, a list of all patents which shall have been granted during 
 the preceding year, designating, under proper heads, the subjects of 
 such patents, and furnishing an alphabetical list of the patentees, with 
 their places of residence; and he shall also furnish a list of all pat- 
 ents WHICH shall have BECOME PUBLIC PROPERTY during tho 
 
 same period." 
 
 (6.) 
 C. H. McCormick^s patent authoritatively declared public property. 
 The United States Patent Office. 
 
 To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 This is to certify, that it appears from the records of this office, thai 
 with the annual report of the Commissioner of Patents of the transac- 
 tions of the Patent Office for the year eighteen hundred and forty-eight, 
 there was laid before Congress a list Of all patents which had become 
 PUBLIC PROPERTY dudng that year, as required by section 14 of (he 
 Patent act of March 3d, 1837. 
 
 That the said list was printed and published with said report, and 
 embraced, among other patents, that granted to Cyrus H. McCormick 
 an the 2l8t day of June, 1834, for an improvement in the machine for 
 cutting grain of all kiuds. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I, Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
 have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, 'tliis 
 
sixth (lay of June, in the year of oui Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred niul fifty-six, and of the independence of the United States the 
 eightieth. 
 
 C; MASON. 
 
 (6.) 
 
 Obed Hussey's patent authoritatively declared public property. 
 
 The United States Patent Office. 
 
 To all persons to whofn these presents sliall come, greeting: 
 
 This is to certify, that it appears frotn the records of this office, that 
 Willi the annual report of the Commissioner of Patents of the transac- 
 lions of the Patent Office for the year eighteen hundred and forty- 
 seven, there was laid before Congress a list of all patents which had 
 become public property during that year, as required by section 14 
 of the Paient act of March 3d, 1837. 
 
 That ihe said list was printed and published with said report, and 
 embraced, among other paienis, that granted to Obed Hussey, on the 
 3l8l day of December, 1833, for a machine for cutting grain. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I. Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
 have caused the seal of the Paient Office to be hereunto affixed, this 
 sixth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-six, and of the independence of the United States the 
 eightieth. 
 
 C. MASON. 
 
 (7.) 
 
 Moore 6,^ Hascall's patent authoritatively declared public property. 
 
 The United States Patent Office. 
 
 To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 This is to certify, that it appears from the records of this office, that 
 with ihe annual report of the Commissioner of Patents of the transac- 
 tions of ihe Patent Office for the year 1850, there was laid before Con- 
 gress a list of all patents which had become public property during 
 that year, as required by section 14 of the Patent act of March 3d, 1837. 
 
 That ihe said list was printed and published with said report, and 
 embraced, among other patents, that granted to H. Moore and J. Has-' 
 call on the 28ih day of June, 1836, for a machine for harvesting grain. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I, Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
 have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, (his 
 sixth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-eix, and of the independence of the United States the 
 eightieth. C. MASON. 
 
(8.) 
 Obed Hussey permit Ltd his patent to expire and thereby become pub- 
 lic property, without even Jiting aft application for an extension. 
 
 The United States Patent Office. 
 
 To all persons to whom these presents s[)all coine, greeting: 
 
 This is to certify, ihiit on a Ciirelul search of the records oi ihisefnce, 
 no evidence caii be /ouiul thai Obed Hussey ever niade an applica;ion 
 for ihe extension of Iciiers-patent granted lo him on the 3lsl day of 
 December, IS33, for a maclune for culling gram. 
 
 In leslimony whereof, I, C'liarles Mason, Commissioner of. Patents, 
 have caused the seal of ihe Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, this 
 sixth day of June, in the year of our Lord one iliousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-six, and of the independence of \.\e United States the 
 eightieth. 
 
 C. MASON. 
 
 (9-) 
 
 Moore ^' Hascall suffered their patent to expire and thereby become 
 
 public property without even filing an application for an extension. 
 
 The United States Patent Office. 
 
 To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 This is lo certify, that on a careful search of the records of this office, 
 no evidence can be found that H. Moofe and J. Hascall ever made aa 
 application for the extension of letters-patent granted to them on the 
 28th day of June, 1836, for a machine for harvesting grain. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I, Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
 have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, this 
 sixth dayiof June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-six, and cf the independence of the United States the 
 eightieth. 
 
 C. MASON. 
 
 (I0-) 
 A Calculation. 
 C. H. McCormick filed his petition before the board, for the exten- 
 sion of his patent of June 21st, 1834, on the 18th "day of January, 
 1848. 
 
 On the 29th day of March, 1848, the board decided against granting 
 the extension. 
 
 Time between the dale on which his petition was filed, and thal^on^ 
 which the final decision against the extension was rendered, 2a»Vi 
 
 DAYS. 
 
 Time between the date (March 29, 1848,) on which the board de- 
 cided against the extension, and that on which the patent expired, 
 (June 2l8t, 1848,) eighty-three days. 
 
NOTARY PUBLIC'S CERTIFICATE. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, \ 
 
 > ss. 
 County of Cook. ) 
 
 I, William J. Lukens, a Notary Pnl)lic in and for the | County 
 and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing, carefully 
 read by me, is a true and complete and correct copy of the pamph- 
 let entitled: "Documents on the Files of the Committee on Patents 
 of the House of Representativ^es," the individual documents form- 
 ing the subject matter of the pamphlet bearing dates January 22nd, 
 1848, May'Srd, 18.56, May 12th, 1856, and others: 
 
 In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and Notarial 
 seal this 22nd day of October, 1900. 
 
 W. J. Lukens, 
 SEAL : Notary Public, Cook County, 111.