MEMORIAL OF HOBBRT McCORMICK. 
 
 HD 
 9486 
 
 U4M46
 
 D)emorial 
 
 or Robert iDcCormick 
 
 lease, Illinois, 1898
 
 REPRINTED IN 1898 
 
 BY 
 
 THE BLAKELY PRINTING CO. 
 
 184-186 Monroe St. 
 
 CHICAGO
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 EGBERT M C COEMICK, 
 
 THE M' COR MICK K 
 
 Reproduced by photograph from'original cover.
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 BEING A BRIEF HISTORY OK HIS 
 
 LIFE, CHARACTER AND INVENTIONS 
 
 INCLUDING 
 
 THE EARLY HISTORY OF 
 
 THE M C CORMICK REAPER 
 
 CHICAGO : 
 BARNARD & GUNTHORP. PRINTERS, 41 & 46 LASALLE STREET. 
 
 1885.
 
 MF9LCTING 
 PAGD WEPt DD 
 PR9DlttDPti. 
 T9(JRAPHICALLY 
 
 BY THf 
 ILLINOIS 
 ENGPAVING 
 COMPANY 
 
 CHICAGO.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 This book is a photo-engraved reprint of a pamphlet 
 printed in Chicago in 1885. As it contains much valuable 
 history, it is thought to be a suitable compliment to "Over- 
 looked Pages of Reaper History, Chicago, Illinois, 1897." 
 The name of the author is not given in the original publication, 
 but the contents show plainly an effort to establish the fact 
 that to Robert McCormick and Leander McCormick of Virginia 
 belongs the credit of inventing the McCormick reaper. 
 
 J. RUSSELL PARSONS, 
 LEWIS MILLER, 
 JOHN F. STEWARD. 
 
 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, June, 1898,
 
 IN DEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Memorial by Wm. S. McCormick, of Wayne County, Mo 7 
 
 Letter " " " " " " 8 
 
 Memorial by Robert McCormick, of Augusta County, Va 10 
 
 " " Col. Thomas S. Paxton, of Rockbridge County, Va 11 
 
 " " Horatio Thompson, D.D. " " 12 
 
 " " Zechariah McChesney, of Spring Hill, Va 13 
 
 Early History by Leander J. McCormick 14 
 
 Memorial by Henrietta M. McCormick 16 
 
 " to Congress, by C. H. McCormick, asking extension of his patent of 
 
 1834 17, 18, 19, 20 
 
 Remonstrance from the Citizens of New York 21 
 
 Bell's Reaper as operated in 1828. 24 
 
 Randall's Reaper as used in 1833 > 26 
 
 Hussey's Reaper as patented in 1833 27 
 
 C. H. McCormick's reaper as patented in 1834 29 
 
 Examiner Chas. G. Page's opinion , 31 
 
 McCormick's Sickle.. 33 
 
 Moore & Haskell's Sickle 33 
 
 Moore & Haskell's Sickle 34 
 
 McCormick's Guards 35 
 
 Hussey's Raker's Seat 39 
 
 McCormick's Raker's Seat 40 
 
 Extracts from Brief Narrative of the Invention of Reaping Machines, by a 
 
 Maryland Farmer and Machinist 44 
 
 Origin of the McCormick Reaper, as it appeared in " The Farmers' Advance," 
 
 C. H. McCormick, Pres 52 
 
 Honors Awarded in Europe ..." 57 
 
 Letter from "The Factory and Farm" , 4 58
 
 ROBERT McCoRMicK. 
 
 SKETCH OF HIS BIRTH, LIFE, CHARACTER, INVENTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Robert McCormick, the subject of this sketch, was the sixth 
 child of Robert and Martha (Sanderson) McCormick; .he was 
 born June 8, 1780, in a large old-fashioned log house on "Walnut 
 Grove" farm, his father's homestead, in Rockbridge county, Vir- 
 ginia. H}s father, Robert, was a native of Central Pennsylvania, 
 having been born near Harrisbtirg in 1738. His grandparents, 
 Thomas and Elizabeth (Carruth) McCormick, came to America 
 from the North of Ireland, in 1735. 
 
 Mr. McCormick received a common school education at a country 
 school, near his own home, and was brought up by his parents 
 according to the strictest tenets of the Seceder branch of the Pres- 
 byterian church, 
 
 On February u, 1808, he married Mary Anna Hall, daughter of 
 Patrick and Susan (McChesney) Hall.* 
 
 Mr. McCormick. was a man of great energy, and determination 
 of character, but withal of a most kind and generous disposition. 
 He was highly esteemed as an upright, reliable citizen, a man of 
 great moral worth, and one " whose word was as good as his bond." 
 
 When advised by his lawyer at one time when in financial trouble 
 (brought about through the rascality of his partner) that he could 
 legally evade paying his debts that were pressing him, by putting 
 his property out of his hands, his reply was " no, I would rather 
 die and leave my children without one dollar, than that it should 
 ever be said that their father had done a dishonest act." 
 
 Throughout his life he took great pleasure in the acquirement of 
 historical and scientific knowledge, and was very fond of astronomy. 
 He subscribed to the leading magazines of the day, and kept him- 
 self well posted in all that was transpiring around him. 
 
 He was a man of remarkable mechanical genius, and seldom 
 failed to accomplish what he undertook. Having blacksmith and 
 carpenter shops, and being himself naturally a good workman with 
 
 * Patrick Hall was born in Armagh county, Ireland, in 1751, emigrated to 
 America in 1770 and settled in Augusta county, Va., where he married Susan Mc- 
 Chesney aholit the year 1775.
 
 almost any kind of 'tools, it was no hard matter for him to make 
 whatever he desired of either wood or iron. 
 
 The first record we have of his endeavors in the line of invention 
 was in the construction of a reaping machine, on which he worked 
 and experimented from and after 1809 From the nature of the 
 testimony concerning his early inventions in this line, it would 
 appear that he may have constructed more than one machine be- 
 tween the years 1809 and 1825. At all events, there is evidence to 
 show that he was engaged at various times during those- years, ex- 
 perimenting on his reaper, and that he used various devices for 
 cutting, and in all probability he made more than one complete ma- 
 chine during all those sixteen or seventeen years. This would 
 seem to be corroborated by the statements, first, of his nephew 
 (Robert McCormick), who says that his father told him that the 
 said Robert McCormiek had invented a reaper in 1809; second, 
 of his son Cyrus, who states that his father had invented a reaper 
 in 1816; third, by Robert McCormick (his nephew), again, who 
 states that his uncle Robert showed him in the year 1825 or 1826, a 
 machine he had just invented. 
 
 His first machine is described as being in outline and general form 
 very much like the reaper of the present day. It ran on two wheels, 
 with a platform to receive the grain in the rear of the cutting apparatus. 
 One of the cutting devices he used on this machine was a system of ro- 
 tary saws, about eight or ten inches in diameter, which revolved, shear 
 fashion, past the edge of a stationary knife. The saws were driven 
 by bands from a cylinder, which was turned by the revolution of the 
 main wheels of the machine. This machine had vertical reels 
 (very similar to some of those used at the present day) to sweep 
 the grain across the cutters, and .when cut, delivered it on a 
 platform in the rear of the cutters, and an endless apron carried 
 it across the platform and delivered it on one side of the machine. 
 Another cutting device which he used consisted of stationary 
 cuvued sickles, against which the grain was forced and cut by 
 vertical reels with pins in their peripheries. The horses walked 
 at the side of the grain, drawing the machine, and were attached 
 to it by shafts or a pole. The machine was not what would 
 be called a success, but it had the main features that are vital 
 in the construction of all grain cutting machines of the present 
 day, and therein justifies the claim made for its author, of origin- 
 ality of thought, and priority of invention, and demonstrates be- 
 yond a doubt that in him was the conception of, and to him be- 
 longs the credit of inventing, and constructing the first reaper 
 which cut grain successfully The certificates printed hereafter 
 clearly establish the fact that he anticipated, in nearly all essential 
 and vital points, every other American or English reaper. The
 
 parts of his early machine were for many years 'stored away in 
 the loft of the old malt house, on the home farm, and were famil- 
 iar objects to those about the farm. 
 
 Recognizing the imperfections in the machine, and always on the 
 alert for improvements, between the years 1828 and 1830* he invented 
 and applied to it what is known as the vibrating sickle and the hor- 
 izontal reel. By this combination his reaper became a practical 
 success. His neighbors, who up to that time had made- light of his 
 efforts and reflected upon him for wasting time that they thought 
 he could have applied to much better advantage by attending to his 
 farm duties, now began to appreciate the greatness of his inventions, 
 and to recognize in the McCormick Reaper the pioneer of the greatest 
 labor-saving farm implement that the world had produced. LTike its 
 predecessor, but to a greater degree, in its characteristics this 
 machine comprised the essential features of all successful grain- 
 cutting machinery of the present day. It was drawn by two 
 horses that walked in front of the main frame and close to the 
 standing grain. It had one main driving wheel in the main frame, 
 and a grain wheel or slide at the outer end of the platform. It had 
 a cutter bar, attached to and back of which was the platform on 
 which the grain fell. The grain was cut by a vibrating sickle, and 
 carried back to the sickle and cast down upon the platform by a re- 
 volving horizontal reel. The reel had slats, or ribs, which dipped 
 into the grain in front of the sickle. The grain divider of the ma- 
 chine was a long pointed piece of wood extending some five feet 
 forward of the sickle, to support the grain end of the reel. The 
 entire side of the machine, from the point of the divider named to 
 the rear corner of the platform and across the back of the platform, 
 was surrounded with an upright canvas about three feet in width. 
 The grain was raked off at the side in bundles by a man who 
 walked beside the machine. The driver did not ride on the ma- 
 chine, but on one of the horses that drew it. 
 
 During the years previous to 1844 there were a number of ma- 
 chines built. In 1844 there were twenty-five built. In 1845 there 
 were fifty built. In 1846 there were seventy-five built, in the latter 
 L. J. owned one-third. 
 
 All of the work on these machines was done under the direction 
 of Robert McCormick, who continued to be actively engaged in 
 the manufacture and improvement of his reaping machines until 
 his death in 1846. 
 
 From this modest beginning dates the history of the vast business 
 of manufacturing grain and grass cutting machinery, which at the 
 present day, gives employment, directly and indirectly, to tens of 
 
 * See certificate of William S. McCormick, pages 7, 8 and 9.
 
 thousands of men, affords investment for millions of dollars, and 
 turns the countless wheels of an amount of machinery that, were 
 it possible to give the figures, it would seem incredible. When 
 we think of the thousands of reaping and mowing machines 
 that are annually sold to the farmers on every continent, and the 
 millions of such machines that are now in operation, what man can 
 look at the record of Robert McCormick's perseverance and suc- 
 cess, in the. face of innumerable obstacles, without feelings of rev- 
 erence and admiration for the man in whose brain was the incep- 
 tion, and through whose mechanical skill and ingenuity was the 
 successful application of an invention which has proven so great 
 and world-wide a boon, not only to the farming community, but, 
 indirectly, to all civilized mankind. 
 
 But the reaping machine* was not the only mechanical problem 
 that commanded the thought and inventive genius of Robert Mc- 
 Cormick. He found time to exercise his inventive mind in other 
 directions as well, and reaped harvests of success in several other 
 mechanical inventions, briefly described as follows: 
 
 In the winter of 1830-31 there was a great deal of talk and much 
 in the newspapers on the subject of raising hemp. Only one thing 
 seemed to be in the way of its becoming a very profitable product, 
 and that was the difficultv of cheaply and profitably reducing the 
 fiber to its required marketable shape. Acting on this seeming 
 demand, Robert McCormick invented a very ingenious and perfect 
 working hemp-break, and in connection with it a horse-power, by 
 which it was driven, and in the fall of 1831 he operated it success- 
 fully. He also invented a machine for cleaning the hemp when 
 broken. The excitement over hemp-raising, however, dying out, 
 the demand for the machines never amounted to much, although a 
 number of them were built and sold. 
 
 Mr. McCormick at another time invented and manufactured a very 
 ingenious threshing machine, in connection with which he made a 
 horse power of peculiar construction. 
 
 He also built a clover sheller of stone, resembling an ordinary 
 mill somewhat, but never did anything with it except for his own 
 use. He also invented and made a blacksmith's bellows, which 
 was of a tub form, and of which he built and sold a large number. 
 
 He invented a water power that worked by confined pressure, 
 somewhat on the principal of the steam engine. 
 
 He also invented a hill-side plow,* for which alone he is entitled to 
 rank among the first inventors of the age, and had it not been for 
 the invention and perfection of the reaper, it would probably have 
 made the name McCormick as well known in connection with 
 
 * See letter of Wm. S. McCormick, pages 7, 8 and 0.
 
 that line of industry as it is in connection with the harvesting of 
 the crops. 
 
 As it was Mr. McCormick's ambition that his sons should follow 
 husbandry as a profession, he purchased a farm of three hundred 
 acres, situated a mile and a half from his own homestead, and another 
 of seven hundred acres on the South river, nine miles west of his 
 home. On each of these places he had a saw mill, and on the South 
 river farm and his home place he had flour mills, which he operated 
 successfully.* 
 
 It will be seen that he was a man of great business and executive 
 ability, as well as inventive genius, when the extensive operations he 
 had on hand constantly are considered. For many years he carried on 
 farming on four farms, aggregating in all 1,800 acres, and at the same 
 time operated two flour mills and two saw mills, besides - which he 
 kept carpenter and blacksmith shops busy, manufacturing various 
 kinds of machinery of his own invention. In all of these operations 
 he had employed during much of the time both white and slave 
 labor. 
 
 About the year 1834 Mr. McCormick engaged with his son Cyrus 
 and a 'man by the name of Black in the iron smelting business, 
 which proved to have been the one great mistake of his life. The}' 
 bought land and built what is known as the '* Cotopaxi Furnace," 
 which was situated on the South river, four miles from Mr. McCor- 
 mick's home. Mr. McCormick furnished the entire capital for 
 conducting the business, although his interest in the enterprise was 
 one-quarter, while his son Cyrus owned one-half. The money 
 of the firm was deposited in a bank in Richmond. After several years 
 of meager Jesuits came the financial panic of 1837. At this time 
 Black drew the firm's cash from the bank, and then put all his own 
 property out of his hands. Thus there was no money available to 
 meet the indebtedness of the firm, and their rascally partner could 
 not be made to disgorge one dollar of the funds he had embezzled. 
 In this combination of misfortunes the furnace had to be closed, and 
 Mr. Robert McCormick had to bend every energy to the liqui- 
 dating and settling the claims of the firm's creditors. 
 
 Mr. McCormick was compelled, on account of this trouble, to sell 
 the old Providence farm which belonged to his wife, as well as 
 the furnace property. Cyrus soon after left home with the inten- 
 tion of seeing what he could do towards establishing and intro- 
 ducing the reaper into the vast wheat fields of the west. Leander 
 
 * Prior to 1837, Mr. McCormick gave the south river' farm to his son Cyrus H., 
 but on account of the losses sustained in the furnace business, he deeded back that 
 property to his father, in part payment of his share of said losses. Mr. McCormick 
 afterwards gave the same property to his son Leander J. 
 
 He gave the home farm, at his death, to his son William S.
 
 left school, and went into the shop; William S. took entire manage- 
 ment of the farming operations and finances, while Mr. McCormick 
 and Leander made reapers, horse-powers, blacksmith's bellows, 
 and other machinery and tools which were sold. Thus the family 
 immediately combined their efforts to free themselves from these 
 obligations, and the proceds of everything that could be turned into 
 cash was applied to the extinguishing of debts for which Mr. Mc- 
 Cormick became liable through his connection with that unfortunate 
 enterprise. 
 
 About the time he was beginning to feel the freedom of once more 
 being out of debt, he was overtaken by a heavy snow storm in com- 
 ing home from his South River farm, where he had been attend- 
 ing to the shipment of reaping machines to Lynchburg. He thus 
 became chilled, took a severe cold which settled on his lungs, and 
 from the effects of which he never recovered. 
 
 He died at his home in Rockbridge county, Virginia, on July 4. 
 1846, and was buried in the old Providence grave yard. 
 
 He had a family of eight children, five sons and three daughters, 
 viz: Cyrus H., Robert Hall, Susan, William Sanderson, Mary Caro- 
 line, Leander James, John Prestley, and Amanda J. Two of his sons 
 and one daughter died young. His three sons, Cyrus H., William S., 
 and Leander J., settled in Chicago and engaged in the manufacture 
 of reapers and mowers, and from their combined efforts grew the 
 great manufacturing concern bearing the name of " McCormick." * 
 
 * It may be interesting to know in this connection that on the death of" Mr. Robert 
 McCormick, his son Leander went to live on the South River farm, which had 
 been left him by his father, and was arranging to continue the manufacture of 
 reapers at that place (as the farm was provided with a saw mill and the other 
 necessary appliances, as stated above), when Cyrus induced him to go to Cincinnati 
 to superintend the construction of one hundred machines for the harvest of 1847, 
 by offering him a one-third interest in the business at that place. He returned to 
 Virginia in the fall of that year, and made the necessary arrangements and came 
 to Chicago to live in 1848, when he took charge of the manufacturing department 
 for McCormick, Ogden & Co., a one-sixth interest in the business having been given 
 him. William S remained on the home farm, it having been left him by his father, 
 but was also induced to come to Chicago in 1850, and assumed the charge of the 
 financial department. In this way the three brothers, Cyrus H., W. S. and L J., 
 became united in introducing and bringing to perfection, in the west the work already 
 begun by their father
 
 Early History and Invention of the McCormick Reaper. 
 
 By WILLIAM S. McCoKMiCK, of Wayne County, Missouri. 
 
 My name is William S. McCormick. I am seventy-six years of 
 age. I was born in Augusta county, Virginia. 
 
 I am intimately acquainted with the invention of the McCormick 
 Reaper. I saw this great machine progress step by step from the 
 unsuccessful experiment my uncle, Robert McCormick, first tried 
 prior to the fall of 1828 or spring of 1829, when I went to live with 
 my uncle, Robert McCormick. This machine was a small two- 
 wheeled reaper, drawn by a horse in shafts, with stationary cutters. 
 This failed to work and it was laid aside by my uncle. 
 
 And I was personally present when my old uncle, Robt. McCor- 
 mick, the father of C. H. and L. J. McCo'rmick, first conceived the 
 idea of his second reaping machine, subsequently patented. This 
 was in 1829. or 1830. I myself and one Samuel Hite were the men 
 who did the work for Robert McCormick while he invented and 
 experimented with the machine. I know that Robt. McCormick 
 was the sole inventor of the reaping machine. His skillful brain 
 invented each parcel of the reaper in the order I now name: 
 
 The machine was drawn by horses in front by the standing grain. 
 It had a master-wheel, say three feet in diameter. The sickle was 
 vibrating and driven by a crank which got its motion from gear- 
 wheels from the main axle. The sickle was supported by projecting 
 fingers about three inches apart. Behind this sickle there was a 
 platform on which the grain fell, where it was swept back by the 
 revolving horizontal reel to the sickle and cut, and was faked by a 
 man. The reel was supported by posts at each end and was drive'n 
 by a band from the main axle. 
 
 The foregoing described machine was invented solely and alone 
 by my uncle Robert McCormick. This I know. There can be no- 
 doubt about it whatever. I was present. I lived with my uncle and 
 worked with him on this machine. He gave his orders and they 
 were followed by myself and other workmen. He made his sug- 
 gestions and we followed them. He directed changes and we made
 
 8 
 
 them. I know that the conception and creation was wholly from 
 his own brain. I never heard, his right as the inventor of this 
 machine questioned by any one, nor did I hear any one else at that 
 time claim any of the invention. On the contrary I know that my 
 uncle, Robt. McCormick, claimed the invention of the machine, 
 He was endowed with a mind skilled and inventive, ancj he had in* 
 vented other matters. 
 
 In witness of the foregoing statement*!, have . hereunto set'rfiy 
 jhand this 5th day of June, 1880. 
 
 (Signed) WM. S. McCoRMiCK. 
 
 MARCH 4, 1880. 
 
 PATTERSON, WAYNE COUNTY, Mo., Nov. 7th, 1878. 
 
 DEAR COUSIN: Yours of October 28th has just come to hand 
 and found myself and wife both very feeble in health. 
 
 I will, however, answer your letter and give you such facts as I 
 can call to mind or gather up in regard to the early history of the 
 McCormick Reaper. 
 
 My uncle, Robert McCormick, had built a small two-wheeled 
 reaper with stationary cutters, drawn by a horse in shafts, which 
 failed to work, and he laid it aside, before I went to live with him, 
 which was in the fall of 1828 or in the spring of 1829. And I was 
 personally present when uncle Robert conceived the idea of his sec- 
 ond machine. Myself and Sam Hight were the workmen who did 
 the work; Cyrus McCormick helping also. But as to the invention 
 of the machine, that was my dear old uncle Robert's and none else. 
 In several cases in putting it up he would speak to me noting it thus 
 and so, as I was his right-har^ man ; but he was the sole inventor of 
 the whole thing, for I know it well. 
 
 I was living with him for some time before he tried his second 
 wheat cutter. The first thing I helped him to do was to build a water- 
 power to operate like steam from the old mill-trunk; but it would 
 not work. Next we tried a horse-power (hemp break), which did 
 exceedingly well; and next was his second wheat-cutter. And all 
 from his own head. He was the greatest genius or natural mechan- 
 ic I ever saw at least I looked upon him as such. 
 
 The machine was drawn by the horses in front by the standing 
 grain; and it was built on one master-wheel, say three feet in diame- 
 ter, and ran out into the grain to the right the length of the sickle, 
 with a slide on the further end. ^The sickle cut by horizontal 
 crank motion from the main wheel. , The reel worked by bands over 
 the cutter, put in motion by a crank by the master-wheel horizontal. 
 The wheat was thrown, down behind the platform by the reel and 
 raked offby hand.
 
 You know the blacksmith bellows my uncle Robert invented wercJ 
 in operation in his shop before I went there to live in 1828. 
 
 And as to his hill side plow, the two mole-boards were attached 
 together, but could move under the beam and formed the land side 
 in going one way, and the other going the other; but the sheer 
 moved only a little hard. Had a cutter on both ends. 
 
 This is about as well as I can recollect so far back. 
 
 WM. S. McCoRMiCK. 
 
 PATTERSON, WAYNE Co., Mo., Nov. 28, 1878. 
 
 DEAR COUSIN: Yours of the 2d inst. just came to hand, and I 
 am just able to be .up most all the time, but my companion is now 
 down while I write. 
 
 Now, as to the machine, etc.: From the best information I can 
 get from my old torn books, the work was done in making the first 
 reaping machine at your father's, in the year 1829. I made bellows 
 at your papa's in the year 1830, after we came back from Wash- 
 ington city, where your father, Cyrus and myself had gone for the 
 purpose of getting a patent for the reaper. My age at that time 
 was twenty-five years. 
 
 The machine was pretty much the " Old Reliable " the horses 
 hitched to it in the same way. At least the " Old Reliable " was 
 made from it. The sickle, or cutter, was straight and cut with a 
 crank motion, and the reel or rake turned with a band over the cut- 
 ter and threw the wheat on the platform, and when there was 
 sufficient for a bundle it was raked off by hand. This is about the 
 best recollection of the same at this late date. 
 
 My dear old uncle had made a small machine, or part of one, be- 
 fore I went there to live with him that stood up, and a crooked 
 cutter was to come around horizontally, but it never did any good, 
 and I have often laughed at him about it, and he never did anything 
 more with it after I came to live with him. He never made but the 
 one machine while I lived there with him. I lived with him there 
 till about the last of the year 1831. I was making bellows all the 
 time. 
 
 I believe I have given you about all the information I can respect- 
 ing the first wheat-cutter made by your father, and if I can do any- 
 thing more for you in that line it will be most cheerfully done. So, 
 no more at present, but remain, 
 
 Your most affectionate cousin, 
 
 WM. S. McCoRMjcK. 
 
 P. S. My impression was, before I left the State of Virginia, 
 that my uncle had given it to Cyrus; but I don't think I got it 
 directly from himself. WM. S. McC.
 
 HISTORY AND INVENTION OF THE McCORMICK REAPER. 
 
 By ROBERT MCCORMICK, County of Augusta, State of Virginia; 
 Aged 76 Years. 
 
 My first recollection of the invention of the McCormick 
 Reaper was in 1809, when I was a small boy. My father told 
 me that his brother Robert (father of Cyrus H. and L. J. Mc- 
 Cormick) had invented a reaping machine to be drawn by horse- 
 power, but that their father discouraged the work at the time. 
 
 In 1825 or 1826 Robert McCormick (father of Cyrus H. and 
 L. J. McCormick) came to me and told me he had invented a reap- 
 ing machine, and requested me to go over to his house and look at 
 it. I went over to Robert McCormick's, and he got the machine 
 out of the malt-house and put it up in the yard. The reaping- 
 machine was constructed of small circular saws eight or ten inches 
 in diameter, which bent the grain to the sickle. It was caught by 
 bands, carried to the side and deposited by the bands. During the 
 harvest of 1825 or 1826 this machine was used on Robert Mc- 
 Cormick's farm. But the great objection to this machine was that 
 when the grain was dry or very ripe it got fastened in the bands. 
 
 After this harvest Robert McCormick obtained an entire sickle 
 which worked by a crank. Robert McCormick invented and 
 adopted the reel. 
 
 I am prepared to declare from my personal knowledge of the 
 facts, that Robert McCormick (father of C. H. and L. J. Mc- 
 Cormick) is the inventor of the McCormick Reaper. Robert 
 McCormick had repeated conversations with me about his inven- 
 tion, and I know that he is entitled to the credit of this invention. 
 He might have patented his reaper eight or ten years before it 
 was patented. He then gave the right to the patent to C. H. Mc- 
 Cormick, his son. 
 
 Given under my hand this i8th day of February, 1879. 
 
 (Signed) ROBERT McCoRMiCK. 
 
 Witnesses: 
 
 S. MCCORMICK. 
 
 M. S. MCCORMICK. 
 
 10
 
 Early History and Invention of the McCormick Reaper. 
 
 By COL. THOMAS S. PAXTON, of West of Fairficld, Rockbridge Co., Va.; 
 Aged 77 Years. 
 
 I was acquainted, and intimately acquainted, with Robert 
 McCormick, and knew all his family well. I knew him first in 
 1827 or 1828, and until his death. He was not a communicative 
 man. He always kept his counsel in business and purpose pretty 
 much to himself, although at times he would speak somewhat of 
 his business to his personal friends. 
 
 The first of my recollection is, although 1 think I heard frequently 
 before, that Robert McCormick was inventing a reaper. I was 
 working for Robert McCormick. -I saw Mr. Robert McCormick 
 frequently standing over the machine and musing and studying. 
 On the occasion he had the machine in the yard. He was standing 
 studying over it, drawing down, as was his habit, his under lip. 
 Finally he called me to him the machine did not work to suit him 
 and asked my opinion about some change he intended making in 
 his reaper I was a mill-wright, and working in the yard near him. 
 I gave him my advice as far as I could, and then, as he stood there 
 studying, I remarked to the old gentleman: " Mr. McCormick, this 
 is not Cyrus's invention; it is yours, ts it not?" He replied at once: 
 " Yes, but I intend to give Cyrus the benefit of it." 
 
 I have no doubt whatever myself that Robert McCormick was 
 the original inventor of the machine. It was the general opinion 
 of the community around and about Robert McCormick's that he 
 was the inventor; and this was justified by the constant and unre- 
 mitting labor and attention Robert McCormick bestowed on the 
 machine, and his known ingenuity and skill in work and in inven- 
 tion. He invented a threshing machine, and I erected one of them 
 that was run by .water. This reaper, invented by Robert McCor- 
 mick,. is the same one (improved) that is now being manufactured 
 by Cyrus H. and Leander J. McCormick in the city of Chicago. 
 
 In witne.ss whereof I' hereunto affixed my name September 
 10, 1878. (Signed) Coi>. THOMAS S. PAXTON. 
 
 Witnesses: 
 
 JOHN H. POTTER, 
 P. A. PAXTON.
 
 Early History and Invention of the McCormick Reaper. 
 
 By REV. HORATIO THOMPSON, of Timber Ridge, Rockbridge Co., Va.; 
 Aged 80 Years; Occupation, Minister of the Gospel. 
 
 I was acquainted with Robert McCormick, father of Cyrus H. 
 and Leander J. McCormick, from 1832 till his death. 
 
 I am sure I never heard the name of the inventor of the McCor- 
 mick wheat reaper questioned before the death of Robt. McCormick. 
 Robt. McCormick was the inventor of the original wheat reaper. 
 This I understood more than 40 years ago. I saw him at work on 
 the machine in his shops. His whole soul appeared to be absorbed 
 in the work of this invention. People spoke of him as being 
 engaged in a foolish undertaking. All persons in his community, 
 at the time of the invention, ascribed it to Robt. McCormick, and 
 no other name in those days was associated with the invention than 
 that of " Robt. McCormick." I heard Robt. McCormick speak, 
 himself, of the invention of the wheat reaper, and he told me that 
 he had every reason to believe it would be a success if he could get 
 it arranged to suit him. 
 
 This wheat reaper of Robt. McCormick's is the same, improved 
 upon by C. H. and L. J. McCormick, and now manufactured in 
 Chicago. 
 
 (He also states that he is well acquainted with Col. Thomas S. 
 Paxton, of west of Fairfield, and he considers him a " gentleman of 
 high character and sterling integrity.") 
 
 In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand, this pth day of Sept., 
 1878. 
 
 (Signed) HORATIO THOMPSON, D. D. 
 Witnesses: 
 
 Mrs. T. N. DAVIS, 
 ELIZA THOMPSON.
 
 Early History and Invention of the McCormick Reaper, 
 
 By ZECHARIAH MCCHESNEY, of Spring Hill, Virginia, 
 Aged 82 Years. 
 
 I was well acquainted with Robert McCormick (father of Cyrus 
 H. and Leander J. McCormick) from his earliest childhood. I 
 knew all his family. We were distantly related. 
 
 I knew that Robert McCormick was engaged in studying and 
 inventing this wheat reaper several years before it was put on the 
 market. Cyrus and Leander were then boys. Some persons spoke 
 of Robert's efforts as folly. Others spoke of his ingenuity. I heard 
 persons say that in making his experiments with his reaper he 
 worked it in the night to avoid observation, I suppose. 
 
 I am satisfied that Robert McCormick was the original inventor 
 of the McCormick Wheat Reaper. There was no doubt about this 
 at the time he was engaged in inventing it and at the time it was 
 put in the market. I never heard, during the lifetime of Robert 
 McCormick, any other name associated with the invention than that 
 of Robert McCormick; although Cyrus, his son, was an efficient 
 aid and agent for his father after the invention and when the 
 machine was put on the market, in making sales of the wheat 
 reaper. I bought one of the first reapers from Cyrus, who acted 
 as the agent for his father. 
 
 I cannot now give the year, in which I first heard of Robert 
 McCormick's efforts to invent the reaper. 
 
 This invention of Robert McCormick's is the original of the now 
 improved McCormick Reaper manufactured in the City of Chicago 
 by Cyrus and Leander, Robert's sons. 
 
 In witness whereof, I hereunto affixed my name, September 9, 
 1878. 
 
 (Signed) ZECHARIAH MCCHESNEY. 
 
 Witnesses: 
 
 B. F. COCHRANE. 
 ADAM MCCHESNEY.
 
 Early History of the McCormick Reaper, 
 
 BY LEANDER J. MCCORMICK. 
 
 The first I ever heard about my father's invention was about a 
 machine which he was said to have built about the year 1809 or 
 1810. He afterwards built a machine which was stored, during my 
 boyhood (and which I have often seen), in the old malt-house, and 
 it was said to have been built about 1816, it had stationary cutters 
 and vertical reels and a platform; was supported on .two wheels 
 and had shafts by which it was drawn. 
 
 My father built a successful reaping machine in 1831, with which 
 he cut some grain; this machine did good work under favorable 
 circumstances, it ran on one main driving or supporting wheel; had 
 a vibrating sickle with a platform to receive the cut grain until a 
 sufficient amount had been cut to form a bundle and it was then 
 raked off and out of the way of the horses by a man who walked 
 beside the machine, it had a reel to carry the grain back to the 
 sickle. This machine was substantially the same s afterwards 
 built by the family in 1844, '45, '46. 
 
 In the summer of 1845 I conceived the idea of the raker's seat, 
 as afterwards patented by my brother Cyrus, and which was used 
 on all the machines built from the time I invented it, until the 
 purchase of the McClintock Young Self-Rake patent about 1868, 
 which performed about the same work by machinery that the raker 
 was enabled to do by hand by the use of my invention. 
 
 Immediately after I invented the seat, I attached it to the reaper 
 as then built by my father and myself, and I wrote t'o my brother, 
 Cyrus, who was then at Brockport, N. Y., giving him a full descrip- 
 tion, with drawings, etc., of the improvement. I afterwards (about 
 the year 1868) found the letter which I had written him and which 
 was post-marked " Brockport, N. Y.," among a lot of old papers 
 when I was visiting the old home. 
 
 The invention might more properly be called a " raker's stand," 
 as it enabled a man to stand on the rear portion of the machine, 
 facing backwards, there being a timber attached to the frame of 
 the machine extending backwards and between the raker's legs. 
 (He stood astride.) There was a cross-board attached to this
 
 M 
 
 timber for him to lean against which held him in his position while 
 he holding the rake in both hands raked the grain from the platform. 
 
 I further wish to say that my father continued to work on his 
 reaper year after year, from the time I was a small boy until his 
 death, and that I never knew or heard of his having abandoned the 
 machine or having lost confidence in it; as proof of which I will 
 state that we built quite a large number of machines for sale during 
 the summers of 1844, '45 and '46, I had a one-third interest in the 
 machines built at home in 1846, and went to Cincinnati to superin- 
 tend the building of one hundred machines in 1847 in which I had 
 a one-third interest. 
 
 In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my name. 
 
 L. J. McCORMICK. 
 
 CHICAGO, August ist, 1885.
 
 Early History of the McCormick Reaper. 
 
 BY HENRIETTA M. MCCORMICK} wife of Leander J. McCormick. 
 
 I was married October 22, 1845, and lived in Mr. and Mrs. 
 Robert McCormick's family some months after my marriage. I 
 had previously gone to school with their daughter Amanda, and 
 became acquainted with my husband, Leander J. McCormick., at 
 her wedding, May 8, 1845. I was one of her bridesmaids. 
 
 I was well acquainted with Mr. Robert McCormick's family; my 
 father having also been well acquainted with him. I always 
 understood him to have been the inventor of the reaper. I never 
 heard any other name mentioned as having had anything to do 
 with its invention. 
 
 I learned for the first time, shortly before the death of Mr. Robert 
 McCormick, that he had given the invention to Cyrus. This I was 
 surprised and chagrined at, as I had expected my husband to share 
 with the family in the benefits growing out of it. I had frequent 
 talks with Mrs. McCormick and the family, and she tried to recon- 
 cile me by saying that Cyrus had promised to " make all the family 
 rich if he ever made anything out of it." 
 
 My husband told me, while we were living with the old people 
 at that time, that he had made a valuable improvement in the ma- 
 chine, and that he had written Cyrus at Brockport, N. Y., and 
 described it to him. Some twenty years afterwards I saw and read 
 this letter with descriptions and drawings of the raker's seat, which 
 he had written to Cyrus at Brockport, N. Y., before I was married 
 in October, 1845. My husband found the letter among a lot of 
 Cyrus' old papers which had been left scattered around at Walnut 
 Grove, the old homestead. The letter referred to was afterwards 
 burned in the Chicago fire. 
 
 August 10, 1846, immediately after Mr. Robert McCormick's death, 
 we removed to the South River Farm, which my husband* inherited 
 from him, he having previously given it to Cyrus and taken it back 
 on account of having had to pay Cyrus' losses in the smelting busi- 
 ness, in which -he and Cyrus were interested with a man named 
 Black. 
 
 In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my name. 
 
 CHICAGO, August i, 1885. HENRIETTA M. MCCORMICK.
 
 Origin, Progress and Improvement of the McCormick Reaper. 
 
 AS STATED HY C. H. McCoRMICK IN HIS MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS 
 
 ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OK HIS PATENT 
 
 OF JUNE 21, 1834. 
 
 " In the summer of 1831, my father (Robert McCormick, who 
 patented a hemp-breaking machine, and who died on the 4th of 
 July, 1846) constructed a machine for cutting gram upon a prin- 
 ciple entirely different from mine,* and on which he had made ex- 
 periments yeais before; and by his experiment in the harvest of 
 1831 he became satisfied that it would not answer a valuable pur- 
 pose, notwithstanding it cut well in straight wheat. Very soon 
 after my father had abandoned his machine, I first conceived the 
 idea of cutting upon the principle of mine, viz: with a vibrating 
 blade operated by a crank and the gram supported at the edge 
 while cutting by means of fixed pieces of wood or iron projecting 
 before it. (I think these pieces were of iron in 1831, but if not, 
 iron was used for them certainly in the harvest of 1832.) A tem- 
 porary experimental machine was immediate.ly constructed, and the 
 cutting partially tried with success, in cutting, without a reel, a 
 little wheat left standing for the trial; whereupon, the tnachine was 
 improved, and the reel which I had in the meantime discovered ;f 
 and soon afterwards (the same harvest) a very successful experi- 
 ment was made with it in cutting oats in the field of Mr. John 
 Steele, neighbor to my father. The machine at the time of this ex- 
 periment contained all the essential parts that were embraced in the 
 patent of June 2ist, 1834. ^ na< ^ tne p&*tfe rtt *t the straight sickle 
 with a -vibrating action by a crank, the fingers, or stationary sup- 
 ports to the cutting, at the edge of the blade, and projecting for- 
 ward into the grain; (the double and counter action from the crank, 
 as patented, was abandoned on being further tested), the reel, and 
 the general arrangement by which the machine was (about) bal- 
 anced upon two -wheels, perhaps nine-tenths of the whole weight be- 
 ing thrown upon the one behind the draught, thereby attaching the 
 
 * See testimonial of VV. S. McCormick, page 7. 
 f Discovered does not necessarily mean invented.
 
 i8 
 
 horses in front and at one side without the use of a separate two- 
 wheeled cart, for the purpose of controlling the running of the ma- 
 chine, and at the same time causing the machine (upon its two 
 wheels) to accommodate itself to the irregularities of the ground, 
 which construction I claim." 
 
 He further states in the same memorial that he contracted with 
 A. C. Brown, of Cincinnati, to build 100 Reapers for the harvest 
 of 1847; "and I gave my brother (L. J. McCormick) a one-third 
 part in that contract, to induce him to attend to the manufacture at 
 that place, which he did," etc. 
 
 (Signed) " Very respectfully, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 "C. H. MCCORMICK." 
 
 WALNUT GROVE, Feb. 17, 1848. 
 
 The undersigned, mother ajid brothers of Cyrus H. McCormick, 
 do hereby state, each for himself, (and herself) that during the har- 
 vest of 1831, said C. H. McCormick did have constructed and put 
 into operation in cutting wheat on this farm, and oats on the farm of 
 Mr. John Steele, (a near neighbor) a reaping machine for which a 
 patent was granted to him on the 2ist day of June, 1834. When 
 used in cutting the oats at Mr. Steele's as aforesaid, this machine, 
 we believe,* was essentially the same in principle as when patented 
 as above; that is, it had a platform for receiving and carrying the 
 grain until a sufficient quantity was collected for a sheaf, more or less. 
 The cutting was done by a straight blade having a sickle or serated 
 edge, placed at the front edge of the platform, and which received a 
 vibratory action from a crank; and the grain was supported at the 
 edge of the blade by fixed pieces of iron (or wood) placed about two 
 or three inches apart, projecting before the edge and being above 
 and below it so as to support the grain both at the upper and under 
 side of the blade. k At one side of, and attached to, the platform, a 
 
 * These memorials were probably prepared by C. H. McCormick himself. (See 
 John Steele, Jr., page 47, and Eliza H. Steele's testimony, page 48.) It will be seen 
 that they did not say that the machine did any work on the home farm, nor did 
 they state that it was the same machine that cut the oats on Steele's farm, nor did 
 they state that C. H. invented either of them, but simply that he had a machine 
 constructed for the harvest of 1831, which he put in operation on the home farm 
 (which might have been done 'without cutting a bushel of grain), and for which a 
 patent was granted him in 1834. (See cut of this machine, page 20 ) 
 
 He then describes the machine which cut the oats, and the mother and brothers 
 testify that they believed it was essentially the same as the one he put in operation 
 and patented, -which it may have been and still have been a very different machine, 
 as he himself states in his memorial to Congress that his father built a reaper that 
 year, and several others have also testified to the same effect, and that was probably 
 the machine that cut the oats on Steele's farm. _ (See certificates for description of 
 Robert McCormick's" machine.)
 
 frame was erected in which were placed one main driving wheel, 
 about two feet in diameter, that run on the ground and supported 
 that side of the machine, and other cog wheels, operated from the 
 axle of the driving wheel, which communicated action to the crank, 
 which (crank) was placed in a line with the blade and attached by 
 a connecting wooden driver. From the frame that supported the 
 wheels, a pair of shafts were extended forward, to which a horse 
 was attached that pulled the machine, walking close to the edge of 
 the grain; and the side of the platform extending into the grain was 
 supported by a small wheel, the machine being about balanced on 
 the two ground wheels, and steadied by the shafts attached to the 
 horse. Above the blade was placed the reel, which was revolved 
 by a band from a wheel on the axle of the driving wheel, which reel 
 gathered the grain to the blade, and when cut, threw it straight on 
 the platform. 
 
 The undersigned do further state that said C. H. McCormick did 
 make great efforts from time to time to introduce said machines in- 
 to general use, but found many difficulties to contend with, which 
 caused much delay in accomplishing the same. And they furtner 
 state that they have no interest in the patent of said reaping ma- 
 chine. 
 
 (Signed) WM. S. McCoRMicx. 
 
 L. J. MCCORMICK. 
 
 MARY MCCORMICK. 
 
 Dr. N. M. Hitt states in a. letter, produced by Cyrus H. McCor- 
 mick at the same time as his memorial to Congress, that " during 
 the harvest of 1831 whilst boarding at the house of Mr. John Steele, 
 about one mile from the farm of Mr. Robert McCormick (de- 
 ceased), father of Cyrus H., I had noticed that a machine had been 
 constructed by the latter to cut wheat ^or other small grain), and 
 that a trial of it could be seen on said farm on that day. 1 accord- 
 ingly, as well as Mr. 'and Mrs. Steele, went to Mr. McCormick's 
 and did, on that day, witness probably one of the first experiments 
 made by the operation of the Virginia Reaper. This experiment 
 was made in cutting a piece of wheat without the reel. Otherwise 
 the principles of the machine, though imperfect, were, I believe, the 
 same as afterwards patented." 
 
 Messrs. John Steele, Jr., and E. Steele corroborate Dr. N. M. 
 Hitt's statement, and that they also saw it operated with a reel in 
 cutting oats on our farm in the summer of 1831. 
 
 John McCowan states in a communication which Cyrus H. Mc- 
 Cormick presented to Congress, at the same time with his other 
 memorial, under date of December 31, 1847, Rockbridge County; 
 Virginia: " I reside some twelve or thirteen miles from the resi-
 
 20 
 
 dence of William McCormick, son of Robert McCormick (de- 
 ceased). During the harvest of 1831, Cyrus H., son of Robert 
 McCormick (deceased), applied to me to make him a cutting blade 
 for a reaping machine which he was then constructing to be oper- 
 ated by horse-power, and by his directions I did accordingly make 
 one, about four feet long, with a straight, serrated or sickle edge, 
 with a hole on one end of it for the purpose of being attached, as I 
 was told and , afterwards found out to be the case, to a crank which 
 gave it a vibrating action. The machine ^vvas accordingly put in 
 operation that harvest as I was informed, but did not see it. The 
 present residence of \Vm. S. McCormick was then the residence of 
 his father and family." * 
 
 * In this, McGowan does not state that it was an invention of Cyrus H. McCor- 
 mick's, but that he simply made the sickle for him And Robert McCormick was 
 living at the time, and there was no reason why the father had not instructed the son 
 to order the sickle to be made 
 
 MCCORMICK'S REAPER, PATENTED IN 1834. 
 
 A. Platform B. Tongue to which the horses were attached. D. Cross-bar to 
 which the horses' names were attached. L. Divider W. Reel T Cutter 
 
 (The above cut is taken from a remonstrance of the people of the State of New 
 York against the renewal of C. H. McCormick's patent of June 21, 1834.)
 
 TO THE CONGRESS J)F THE JJNITED, STATES. 
 
 REMONSTRANCE 
 
 i 
 
 Of the Citizens of Neiv York, against the rc.nei.val of Letters Patent grante 
 H. McCoRMiCK, 'June 21, 1834, for imfiovemettts in the Heaping Machine. 
 
 ; _^. ""'*" 
 
 The subscribers, citizens* of jhe^StaU^of^New , York, beg leave 
 respectfully to represent: 
 
 That they have been informed that Cyrus H. McCormick has 
 made application to your honorable body, for a special act of Con- 
 gress, renewing the Letters Patent granted to him by the United 
 States, on the 2ist day of June, 1834, f r improvements in Reaping 
 Machines, claimed to have been invented by him. 
 
 The undersigned, being satisfied that neither justice to Mr. Mc- 
 Cormick nor the public interest requires, that that patent should be 
 renewed, beg leave, humbly but earnestly, to remonstrate against it; 
 and they do so, from a full conviction, 
 
 First, That there is nothing described in that patent which is use- 
 ful, which was not invented and used by others, prior to any in- 
 vention or use of the same by Mr. McCormick, and, 
 
 Second, That if he was really the original and first inventor of 
 any material and valuable part of what he claims, he has been amply 
 rewarded during the existence of his patent. 
 
 That there are other men in our country who have contributed 
 far more to the perfecting of the reaping machine, and rendering it 
 what it has become, a necessary implement of agriculture, than Mr. 
 McCormick has done, and who have received far less reward. And 
 it is by no means certain that the success of Mr. McCormick's ma- 
 chine is not entirely owing to his use of their inventions. 
 
 That we do not make this remonstrance without sufficient grounds 
 for doing so, we beg. leave to submit for the careful consideration of 
 your honorable body, a faithful account of the efforts not only of 
 Mr. McCormick, but of those who preceded him in the invention 
 and construction of reaping machines, and 
 
 First, We invite attention to the patent which is sought to be re- 
 newed. The claims of that patent are in the following words, \f\z: 
 " My claim is for the arrangement of the several parts so as to con- 
 " stitute the above described, machine. And I particularly claim the 
 " method of cutting by means of a vibrating blade, operated by a 
 " crank, having the edge either smooth or with teeth, either with 
 " stationary wires or pieces above and below, and projecting before
 
 22 
 
 M it for the purpose of staying or supporting the grain whilst cutting, 
 " or using a double crank and another blade or vibrating bar, as 
 " above described, having projections before the blade or cutter, 
 " on the upper side, both working in contrary directions, thereby 
 " lessening the friction and liability to wear,, by dividing the motion 
 " necessary for one between the two, and improving the principle of 
 " cutting by gathering and holding the grain to the cutter, the pro- 
 jections standing at a proper angle to said cutter; also the method of 
 " securing them." 
 
 " I also claim the method of gathering and bringing the grain back 
 "to the cutter, and delivering it on the apron or platform, by means 
 " of a reel, as described above, movable .to any height, required to 
 " suit the grain, and the platform to hold the grain until a sufficient 
 " quantity shall have been collected for a sheaf, more or less; like- 
 " wise the mode of changing the machine for cutting either high or 
 " low, as described above; also the method of dividing and keeping 
 " separate the grain to be cut from that to be left standing, and the 
 "method of attaching the tongue, when behind, to the breast of the 
 " horse, to enable him to guide the machine with accuracy." 
 
 Judging from these claims, in the absence of a knowledge of prior 
 inventions, we should be led to conclude that Mr. McCormick was 
 the first inventor of a reaping machine. Here is claimed the ar- 
 rangement of the several parts so as to constitute said machine; and 
 particular claim is made to cutting grain by means of a vibrating 
 blade operated by a crank, having the edge either smooth or with 
 teeth; also to the reel for gathering the grain; and to the platform 
 to hold the grain; and to the method of dividing the grain to be cut 
 from that to be left standing, by means of a simple point projecting 
 in front of the cutter for that purpose. 
 
 But it is important to inquire whether he was really the first and 
 original inventor of the several parts of the reaping machine here 
 claimed. To determine this, it becomes necessary to examine the 
 history of reaper inventions and ascertain what had been invented 
 prior to this alleged invention of Mr. McCormick. 
 
 The idea of cutting grain by machinery propelled by animal 
 power, is of quite ancient origin. Machines for this purpose are said 
 to have been known to the Romans. Both Pliny and Palladius 
 mention such a machine used in the plains of Gaul, with which the 
 latter says they could, with one ox, cut large fields of grain in a day. 
 
 This machine as described was very simple in its construction. It 
 consisted of a box placed upon two small wheels like a cart, with 
 the cutters fastened in the front end. The cutters are imperfectly 
 described. It was designed only to take the heads of the grain, and 
 was raised and lowered to suit the height of grain. Two short 
 shafts were attached to the back end of the machine, to which an
 
 23 
 
 ox was yoked with his head towards the machine, and pushed it in 
 front of hini. As the machine was pushed through the grain, the 
 heads were cut oft" and fell into the box until it was filled, then it 
 was emptied, and the process repeated. 
 
 The first attempts at reaping machines in modern times, so far as 
 we have been enabled to learn, were made early in the present cent- 
 ury, chiefly in Scotland. In Loudon's Encyclopedia of Agriculture, 
 we have an account of the doings of six different individuals who 
 gave their attention to this department of invention. < 
 
 The first was a Mr. Boyce. " His machine was placed in a two 
 wheel carriage, somewhat resembling a common cart, but-lhe wheels 
 were fixed upon the axle and the axle revolved along with them. A 
 cog wheel within the carriage turned a smaller one at the upper end 
 of an inclined axis, and at the lower end of this was a large wheel 
 which gave a rapid motion to a pinion fixed upon a vertical axis 
 in the front part of the carriage, the vertical spindle extended to 
 within a few inches of the ground, and had there a number of 
 scythes fixed upon it horizontally."* The wheels rolling upon the 
 ground as the machine was wheeled along gave the scythes a rapid' 
 rotary motion." 
 
 An improvement was made'upori this machine by Plucknet, which 
 consisted in substituting for the^cythes a circular cutter with a 
 sickle edge. A further improvement was made by Gladstone, of 
 Castle Douglas, which consisted in instituting a circular table with 
 strong wooden teeth notched below all around, which was fixed 
 immediately over the cutter, and .parallel to it. The use of these 
 teeth was to collect the grain and retain it until it Was cut. The 
 grain when cut, was received upon this table, and when a sufficient 
 quantity was collected, taken off^by a rake or sweeper and -laid upon 
 the ground beneath the machine in separate parcels. 
 
 "Salmon of Waburn, made the. next attempt." He constructed 
 his machine upon a totally different principle; it cut the grain by 
 means of shears, and it was provided with an apparatus for laying 
 the grain in parcels as it was cut? 
 
 The next machine was constructed by Smith, of , the Deanston 
 Cotton Works, Perthshire. Smith's machine, in its x general prin- 
 ciple and arrangements resembled Boyce's, and Plucknet's and 
 Gladstone's. The team wa c attached behind the machine and labored 
 with their heads towards it. The cutter was circular and revolved 
 horizontally, and over it was a\ drum that revolved with it, that 
 carried the grain as it was cut to the side of the machine and threw 
 it off in regular rows. The first trial of this machine was in loll. 
 Mr. Smith continued his experiments through 1812, 1813, 1814, and 
 1815, and it is said the last year with much success. 
 
 The next and more important inventor in this department, was
 
 2 4 
 
 the Rev. Patrick Bell, of Scotland. A full and minute description 
 of this machine, with plates nicely lettered, clearly illustrating it, is 
 contained in Loudon's Encyclopedia of Agriculture, pages 422 to 
 427 inclusive; which description ,.vas published in that work as 
 early as 1831, and has been extant in this country since that time. 
 
 BELL'S REAPING MACHING PUT IN OPERATION IN 1828. 
 
 A. Apron which receives the grain 
 attached W Reel T Cutter 
 
 Tongue to which the horses were 
 
 The Reaping machines in use at the present day bear considerable. 
 resemblance to this machine. The frame work is suspended on two 
 wheels, of three and a half feet in diameter, the axle of which re- 
 volves with the wheels. The front end of the machine rests upon 
 two small wheels, placed one on each side, near the cutters. It is 
 provided with two other small wheels under the front part of the 
 machine on a short axle which is attached to the machine at its 
 centre, midway between the wheels, by means of a bolt on which it 
 turns, that it may be shifted angling either way to the machine, by 
 a lever controlled by the operator for the purpose of guiding and 
 turning the machine. When the machine is to be turned around, 
 the front end is raised and rests upon these wheels. The team is 
 attached to the rear part of the machine, with their heads towards 
 it. The grain is gathered up to the cutters by means of a reel, made 
 adjustable back and forth, or raised and lowered to suit the height 
 of the grain. The cutters are shears, the under blades of which 
 are bolted fast to an iron bar that extends across the front end of
 
 .25 
 
 the machine. \ The upper blades vibrate over them, turning on the 
 bolts that bolt them to the iron bar. \These* upper blades extend 
 back from the bolts, or fulcrums, and are connected by a vibrating 
 bar which is attached to a crank put in motion by gearing connect- 
 ing it with the large driving wheels. The grain when cut was 
 thrown back by the reel upon a revolving apron by which it was 
 carried and dropped off at the side of the machine in a continuous 
 swath. Public trials of this machine were had in 1828 and 1829. 
 In 1828 it was tried at Powrie, in the county of Forfar, before be- 
 tween forty and fifty landed proprietors and practical agricultural- 
 ists, who signed a declaration, stating that the machine cut down a 
 breadth of five feet at once, was moved by one horse, and attended 
 by from six to eight persons to tie up the grain, and that the field 
 was reapt by this force at the rate of an imperial acre per hour. In 
 September, 1829, the machine was tried at Monkic, in Forfarshire, 
 in the presence of a still greater number of persons, who attest that 
 it cut in half -<\n hour nearly half an English acre of a very heavy 
 crop of oats, which were lodged, thrown about by the wind, and 
 exceedingly difficult to harvest. , It was tried in a number of other 
 places in Forfarshire, Perthshire and Fifeshire, and the general con- 
 viction appears to be, says the author, " that it will soon come into 
 as general use among farmers as the threshing machine." 
 
 Soon after the trial and notice of Bell's machine, several indi- 
 viduals in different parts of this country gave attention, nearly sim- 
 ultaneously, to getting up reaping machines. 
 
 Thomas D. Burrall, Esq., of Geneva, N. Y., constructed one in 
 1832 or 1833, professedly after Bell's description, with slight modi- 
 fications/ 
 
 William and Thomas Schneby, of the State of Maryland, took 
 out a patent for improvements in reaping machines, the 22d of 
 August, 1833. Their machine had a reel for gathering the grain, 
 constructed however, somewhat unlike Bell's. v Their cutters were 
 essentially the same as Bell's, except as to the manner of communi- 
 cating motion to them. ' The grain when cut,, was thrown back by 
 the reel upon a revolving apron, by which it was carried and 
 dropped at the side of the machine in grips or gavels. On the trial 
 of this machine the revolving apron was found to be impracticable 
 o failed to perform its office, and the grain was raked off by a man 
 riding upon the machine. \. These men, for want of means, were 
 obliged to discontinue their experiments, though their^machine was 
 used with very good success for two or three years. 
 
 Abram Randall, of Oneida county, N. Y., was among the 'early 
 inventors in this department, in this country/ He put his machine 
 into operation in the harvest of .1833."'
 
 26 
 RANDALL S REAPER, AS USED IN 1833, 
 
 A. Platform which receives the cut grain. B. Tongue to which the horses were 
 ached. L. Divider. T. Cutters. W. Re*d. 
 
 attached. 
 
 This machine exhibited great ingenuity and judgment in its con- 
 struction. The frame that contained the gearing was suspended 
 between two wheels of two and a half feet diameter, whose axle 
 revolved and from which motion was communicated to the reel and 
 cutters. The platform for receiving the grain was attached to the 
 rear end of this frame, and extended out one side a distance equal 
 to the width of the swath to be cut by the machine. The cutters 
 which were similar to Bell's, were attached to the front edge of the 
 platform, which was just in rear of the wheels. The team was 
 attached in front of the machine, and traveled forward of the driving 
 wheels. The grain was gathered up to the cutters, and when cut 
 thrown back upon the platform by means of a reel placed (the 
 centre of it) a little in front of the cutters, and made adjustable to 
 any height desired, which was put in 'motion by a belt connecting 
 it with the axle of, the main driving wheel, in the same manner that 
 the reels in all the various machines are moved. For the purpose 
 of separating the grain to be cut from that to be left standing, a 
 point on the side of the machine that run in the grain was made to 
 project in front of the cutter, which projection was broad at the 
 cutters, leaning the grain inwards and outwards. Upon this pro- 
 jection was placed a broad board edgewise, up and down, sloping 
 from back of the cutters down to the point in front, nearly up to 
 which came the ends of the arms of the reel as they passed over 
 the cutters. As at first constructed, the grain was raked from this 
 machine by a man, who rode upon the machine immediately in rear
 
 27 
 
 of the driving wheels at the side of the cutters, and nearly in range 
 with them, with his back towards the team, and raked the grain off 
 at the side of the platform. Mr. Randall afterwards made some 
 experiments with a self-raker. 
 
 This appears to have been the most practical machine of which we 
 have spoken, and was successful and. satisfactory in its operations. 
 
 Among the early reaper inventors of this country, Mr. Obed 
 Hussey, now of Baltimore, stood for many years deservedly the 
 most prominent, and he has doubiless by his genius and indefati- 
 gable exertions (although in a modest way) contributed more to 
 the advancement of this invention than any other man. He first 
 tested his machine in 1833, and took out a patent for it the 3ist of 
 December, of that year. . 
 
 HUSSEY'S REAPER, PATENTED IN 1833. 
 
 A. Platform which receives the grain. B. Tongue to which the horses are 
 attached
 
 28 
 
 He first constructed his machine with a reel to gather the grain 
 up to the cutters, and throw it upon the platform; but on trial, with 
 his cutter^ he thought it unnecessary and only an incumbrance, and, 
 therefore, threw it aside and has never used it since. The main 
 frame-work containing the gearing was suspended on two wheels 
 about three feet four inches in diameter. The platform was attached 
 to tWe rear of this frame, and extended out one side of it, say six 
 feet. The team was attached to the front end of the frame, and 
 traveled at the side of the standing grain, as in Randall's machine. 
 The cutting apparatus was pretty much the -same as now. used ia 
 Hussey's machine. The knife is constructed of steel plates, riveted 
 to a flat bar of iron. These plates are three inches broad at the 
 end where they are riveted to the bar, and four and a half inches 
 long, projecting jn front, and tapering nearly to a point, forming 
 what is described as a saw with .very coarse teeth, which are sharp 
 on both edges. This cutter is supported on what he terms guards, 
 which, are attached to the front edge of the platform or cutter-bar 
 (as termed by Hussey), one every three inches the whole width of 
 the machine, projecting horizontally in front about six or eight 
 inches. These guards have long slots through them horizontally 
 through which the cutter vibrates, and thus form a support for the 
 grain whilst it is cut, and protect the cutter from liability to injury 
 from large stones and other obstructions. The cutter is attached 
 by means of a pitman rod- to a crank, which is put in motion by 
 gearing connecting with one or both of the ground wheels as may 
 be desired, according to circumstances, which gives to the cutter as 
 the machine advances, a quick vibrating motion; and each point of 
 the cutter vibrates from the centre of one guard, through the space 
 between, to the centre of the next, thus cutting equally both ways. 
 As the machine advances, the grain is readily cut, and the butts are 
 carried along with the machine which causes the tops to fall back 
 upon the platform without the aid of the reel. The grain to be cut 
 was separated from that to be left s' anding by means of a point 
 projecting in front of the cutter, in the form of a wedge, bearing the 
 grain both inwards and outwards, with a board set edgewise upon 
 it, sloping downwards., to a point in front. The grain was. raked 
 from the machine by a man riding upon it, in rear of the frame, at 
 the side of the cutter, nearly in range with the guards, with his 
 back towards the team, 'sometimes at the side and sometimes be- 
 hind the platform. Soon after this date Mr. Hussey changed the 
 construction of his machine somewhat, used one large ground wheel 
 instead of two, placed the platform alongside the frame, and placed 
 his raker on a seat by the side of the large ground wheel, facing 
 the team, and raked the grain off in rear of the platform. 
 
 This was for many years doubtless the most practical reaping
 
 2 9 
 
 machine known, and, with the improvements that have been made 
 upon it, from time to time,. it is now preferred to any other in many 
 wheat growing sections of the country. 
 
 The cases here cited show the progress that had been made in 
 this invention, so far as we have knowledge of it, up to the time 
 when we first hear of Cyrus H. McCormick in connection with it. 
 
 Mr. McCormick's first patent bears date the 2ist day of June, 
 1834; l ^ e specification is dated the ipth, two days previous. Now, 
 by comparing his machine, as he presented it to the patent office at 
 that time, with the inventions then publicly known and in use, as 
 we have shown, we are enabled to determine how much he con- 
 tributed to the progress of this invention. 
 
 MCCORMICK'S REAPER, PATENTED IN 1834. 
 
 A. Platform. B. Tongue to which the horses were attached 
 which the horses' hames were attached. L. Divider. \V. Reel 
 
 D Cross-bar to 
 T Cutter 
 
 This machine was supported on two wheels, one of about two 
 feet diameter at the right side, a little in front of the cutter; the 
 other fifteen inches in diameter, placed on the left side near the 
 cutter. The team was attached to the rear part of the machine, 
 and worked with their heads towards it, as in Bell's machine and 
 the other foreign inventions. The greater part of the weight being 
 in rear of the wheels, the rear part was borne by the horses by 
 means of a pole passing across their backs and resting on pad 
 saddles; from this pole a chain passed to -the tongue below, and sus- 
 pended it to the desired height. The platform is described as being 
 about six feet broad. Bell's machine is described as just six feet 
 broad. A reel was attached for gathering the grain, constructed 
 and operated similarly to Bell's. But instead of this reel being sup- 
 ported by bearings extending from the rear part of the machine,
 
 30 
 
 horizontally, as in Bell's machine, a reel post was placed each side 
 of the machine, perpendicularly, in front of the cutter for that pur- 
 pose. The cutter was a long steel blade extending the width of the 
 platform, with a straight sickle edge, with the sickle teeth angling 
 towards the right -side of the machine. Above this sickle was 
 placed another blade, and instead ot the fine sickle teeth for cutting 
 the grain, it had teeth an inch and a half long, and the same distance 
 apart, which angled towards the left side of the machine, the oppo- 
 site way from the angle of the sickle teeth. These long teeth were 
 for holding the grain whilst it was cut. These blades were attached 
 to a double crank on the same shaft opposite to each other, which 
 gave the blades, when vibrating, an opposite motion. The sickle 
 cut only when it moved to the right. This cutting apparatus was 
 similar in principle to Plucknett's (page 3), with the teeth added by 
 Gladstone, except that was circular, and revolved and cut all the 
 time; this is straight and vibrates and cuts only hilf the time. The 
 grain to be cut was separated from that to be left standing, by a 
 projection on the left side of the machine (the side that run in the 
 grain), which extends in front of the eutler some six feet, if we get 
 a correct idea from the specification. The grain, when cut, fell 
 upon the platform, and when a sufficient quantity had accumulated 
 for a sheaf, was raked oft" at the side of the platform by a man who 
 walked at the side of the machine. Motion was communicated to 
 the crank that gave motion to the sickle by gearing that connected 
 it with the large ground wheel. 
 
 We will not stop to enquire how far this machine was original 
 with Mr. McCormick, and how far it was taken from prior inven- 
 tions. But he is presumed to have had -knowledge of what had 
 been then published to the world at the time when this machine was 
 got up; the country from which Mr. McCormick descended; the 
 resemblance in the prominent features of the machines, and the sim- 
 ilarity in the language in which both are described, are all circum- 
 stances that strongly favor the supposition that he at least had 
 knowledge of Bell's machine, which was in use, as we have shown, 
 in 1828. But we -would ask, was this a -practical reaping machine? 
 Was it practical to run this machine on ordinary fields of grain, 
 resting on two small wheels in front, one two feet, the other fifteen 
 inches in diameter, the rear end resting on a pole across the horses' 
 backs, and the horses pushing the machine in front of them? Was 
 it -practical to cut the grain with a vibrating blade cutting only one 
 way, thereby losing half the motion? It might succeed where the 
 grain was very dry and ripe, and free from grass; but was it prac- 
 ticable under ordinary circumstances? Or was it practicable to use 
 a point projecting six feet in front of the cutter with a brace raising 
 from the point backwards, at an angle of sixty degrees, to separate
 
 31 
 
 the grain? Would it separate the grain where it required any sep- 
 arating? These questions are readily answered in the nega- 
 ative by those who have had practical experience in the 
 use of reaping machines, and they are very distinctly answered 
 in the sequel. And in any view we can take of it, was Mr. 
 McCormick entitled to hold under patent from the Govern- 
 ment, the exclusive right of making, vending and using the 
 several parts of the reaping machine claimed in his patent .of 
 1834? Cutting grain by means of a vibrating blade operated by 
 a crank, having the edge either smooth or with teeth; the reel for 
 gathering the grain; the platform for holding the grain, and a 
 simple point projecting in front of the cutter for separating the grain 
 to be cut from that to be left standing. Parts, without using some 
 of which, a practical reaper cannot be made, and having held them 
 by patent fourteen years, is he entitled to hold them for another 
 term of years by special act of Congress? 
 
 The following is a copy of the report made in 1848, by Professor 
 Page, then one of the examiners in the patent office, and to whom, 
 as we understand, was referred the application of Mr. McCormick 
 to the commissioner of patents for an extension of his patent of 
 1834, which he now asks to have extended by Congress. 
 
 No one will be surprised that after the making of that report by 
 the examiner, the application of Mr. McCormick for an extension 
 was denied by the commissioner of patents. Although it is obvious 
 from what we have shown above that the report contained by no 
 means all, or even the strongest evidence which might have been 
 furnished, against the originality of Mr. McCormick's invention. 
 The probability doubtless is that the examiner having discovered 
 enough in the line of prior inventions to dispose of Mr. McCormick's 
 claims, did not consider it necessary to pursue the inquiry further. 
 
 PATENT OFFICE, January 22, 1848. 
 
 SIR: In compliance with your requisition, I have examined the 
 patent of Cyrus H. McCormick, dated 3ist June, 1834, anc ^ 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 315! December, 1833. 
 
 The revolving rack presents novelty 'chiefly in form, as its opera- 
 tion is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, patented 
 2d November, 1825. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. CHAS. G. PAGE, Examiner.
 
 32 
 
 Hon. Edmund Burke, Corner of Patents.^ 
 
 In view of the facts set forth, some will inquire, why "did the 
 patent office grant such claims under these circumstances? <. The 
 answer to which is, that prior to 1836 the patent office made no ex- 
 amination as to the novelty conventions claimed. . Applicants made 
 oath to their inventions, and a patent issued as a matter of course. 
 But it is a little remarkable that Mr. McCormick should have made 
 such claims, and still more remarkable that, after eighteen years 
 have elapsed, he should petition Congress to renew that patent. 
 
 The inquiry is worthy of consideration, who was the first in this 
 country. to construct and introduce into practical and general use, a 
 reaping machine? 
 
 Mr. Hussey, as we have said, made the first trial of his machine 
 in 1833. He manufactured four machines for the harvest of 1834, 
 and twelve or fourteen for the harvest of 1835, a "d he had, at this 
 time, introduced them into five of the wheat growing states/ and 
 has built more or less machines every year since. : He established 
 the business in Baltimore in 1839, built sixteen machines that year, 
 and has ever since continued to do a large business in the manufac- 
 ture and sale of his machines. 
 
 These early operations of Mr. Hussey, when" we "consider the 
 prejudices then existing against reaping machines, and the small 
 portion of the grain growing regions of the country that was then 
 adapted to the use of them, speak well for the success of his 
 machine, and for his exertions in introducing it. 
 
 Of Mr. McCormick's early operations we are not so particularly 
 informed. In an article published by him, Bunder date March I, 
 1845, speaking of his reaper operations, he says " he did not, until 
 last harvest, go out of his native state (Virginia) with his machine." 
 In the same document he published a certificate of Abraham Smith, 
 dated Egypt, Rockingham county, October 31, 1844, m which Mr. 
 Smith-' states: "I believe I have the first reaping machine disposed 
 of by Mr. Cyrus H. McCormick. I have used it every harvest since 
 1840." Which statements together show pretty clearly that his first 
 sales ot machines were made not earlier than 184.0, leaving Mr. 
 Hussey at least six years in advance of him in introducing his 
 machine into use* % And during this time Hussey's machine had 
 made such an impression upon the public mind that there began to 
 be a demand for reaping machines. 
 
 Then -eve begin to hear again of McCormick's reaper? We hear 
 of one in use in 1840, and of two more in 1842. There may have 
 been more of them in use in these years. We have.no knowledge 
 of any more. 
 
 To fully determine the merits of this case"it" r becomes~necessary 
 to trace the 'origin and progress of improvements* in the- reaping
 
 33 
 
 machine so far as they have a bearing upon it, and ascertain how 
 much Mr. McCormick has invented since 1834. 
 
 At the time the early efforts in this country, to which we have 
 referred, were being made, Messrs. Moore and Haskell, of Michi- 
 gan, conceived the idea of constructing a machine, not only for 
 cutting grain, but for culling, thrashing, winnowing' and sacking' it 
 at one operation. This was a magnificent idea, and its conception 
 at that particular time affords an interesting illustration of the pro- 
 gressive nature of inventions. 
 
 * Their machine was necessarily complicated, and required years of 
 experiments to perfect it, but has finally been made, by the perse- 
 verance of these men, one of the most perfectly adapted mechanical 
 arrangement, to the purpose for what it is designed, to be found 
 in the whole range of mechanics, capable of cutting, thrashing, 
 winnowing and sacking three acres of wheat per hour. These men 
 constructed their first machine in 1834, and took out a patent in 
 June, 1836. 
 
 This machine is noticed here only for the purpose of showing the 
 improvements made by these men in the cutting apparatus. They 
 cut with a sickle edge, but differing from Mr. McCormick's in the 
 following particulars: They reversed the angle of their sickle teeth 
 in alternate sections of an inch and a hajf or two inches each, the whole 
 length of the blade, which caused it to cut equally both ways, 
 whereas it will be remembered Mr. McCormick's sickle teeth all 
 inclined in the same direction and cut only one way. This difference 
 is shown in the following diagiams: 
 
 MCCORMICK'S SICKLE. 
 
 A. Sickle. B. The long teeth of the upper blade for holding the grain. 
 
 MOORE AND HASKELL S SICKLE. 
 
 C. Sickle. D Guards for supporting the grain through which the sickle vibrates. 
 
 The advantage of this reversed angle of the teeth must be appar- 
 ent to all when once suggested. Only half the power is required 
 to move the sickle when cutting that is required to move it when 
 the teeth all incline ;n the same direction. It cuts -twice as often,
 
 34 
 
 consequently has only half as much to cut each time. Indeed, it is 
 believed that without the reversed angle the use of the sickle in 
 these machines is impracticable. Moore and Haskell used stationary 
 guards for supporting the sickle, similar in principle to those used 
 by Hussey,. which supported the grain whilst it was cut. 
 
 After using this form of sickle with a straight edge a short time, 
 and finding it defective, they invented what is termed the scolloped 
 sickle, with the reversed angle, formed thus: 
 
 A. Sickle. B. B. B. Guards for supporting the grain, and protecting the sickle. 
 
 This sickle was constructed of steel plates about four inches long, 
 riveted to a bar of iron. This is doubtless the best arranged cutter 
 for reaping machines now known. Many persons, however, prefer 
 Hussey's. 
 
 Moore and Haskell built two of their Harvesters at Rochester, 
 N. Y., in 1836, in which they put the straight sickle with the re- 
 versed angle of the teeth, which, however, soon afterwards gave 
 place to the scolloped sickle; but of the exact date of this change 
 we are not informed. 
 
 Mr. McCormick obtained a patent for improvements in his reap- 
 ing machine on the 3ist.pf January, 1845.. By a careful examina- 
 tion of the improvements claimed in this patent of 1845, in connec- 
 tion with the foregoing facts, we are enabled to ascertain how much 
 he then invented. He made the following alterations in his ma- 
 chine of 1834. The team was taken from behind the machine, and 
 placed in front, the same as Schnebly, Hussey, Randall, and Moore 
 and Haskell had placed theirs from the first. He threw aside the 
 old sickle with the teeth all inclined in one direction, and adopted 
 the reversed angle of teeth invented by Moore and Haske!l, and put 
 in use by them, certainly as early as 1836. He dispensed with the 
 upper -vibrating blade with the long teeth for holding the grain, and 
 substituted in its stead stationary guards, or fingers (as they are 
 termed by Mr. McCormick). These guards were shaped some- 
 what differently from Hussey's, or Moore and Haskell's. They 
 passed over the sickle instead of the sickle passing through slots in 
 them, and were broad in front and angled back towards the sickle, 
 forming on both sides of the fingers an acute angle with its edge,- as 
 in the diagram:
 
 A. Sickle. B. B. Guards. 
 
 With this form of guard he retained on both sides of it the same 
 angle to the edge of the sickle that he had on the long teeth in the 
 upper blade in 1834, on the side against which the grain was cut, 
 which become necessary, as the sickle now cuts both ways. The 
 acute angle is important where the straight sickle is used, but of no 
 account with the scalloped sickle. He dispensed with the plates 
 bolted to the under side of the finger piece, and to the sickle, for 
 supporting the sickle, and let the sickle slide on a bar of iron ex- 
 tending the whole length of it, which bar or knife case was sup- 
 ported by straps of 'iron passing from it to the finger piece, leaving 
 a narrow space between the knife case and finger piece, and in this 
 space these supports were bent downwards. He put upon the in- 
 side of the point that extends in front of the sickle, and divides the 
 grain to be cut from that to be left standing, an iron rod, which was 
 attached near the point by two bolts, one of which passed through 
 a slot in the rod. Being thus attached, the back end ot it could be 
 raised and lowered. From these bolts thijj rod rose towards the reel 
 at an angle of about thirty degrees, until it came in contact with it, 
 and was then bent to fit the circle described by the reel, and ex- 
 tended back to the sickle. Being thus arranged, it could be raised 
 and'lowered as it was required to raise or lower the reel, and thus 
 be always kept in contact with the arms of the reel, the object of 
 which was to divide the grain. 
 
 He shifted the foot of the reel post on the left side of the ma- 
 chine, which was in front of the sickle,- to about nine inches back of 
 it, curved it outwards and leaned it forwards, and extended it so 
 high that it could be braced from the top across in front of the reel, 
 to the tongue between the horses. 
 
 On these improvements he has five claims in the patent of 1845. 
 
 The first claim is on the bend downwards in the bearers that sup- 
 port the knife-case. 
 
 Second. The reversed angle of the sickle teeth; an improve- 
 ment that Moore and Haskeil put into use certainly as early as nine 
 years before that time. 
 
 Third. The form of the guards or fingers in front of the sickle, 
 forming an acute angle with the edge. 
 
 The fourth is a combination of the dividing iron and a bow on the 
 outside of the divider, for separating the wheat. 
 
 The fifth is setting the lower end of the reel post behind the cut-
 
 36 
 
 ter, curving it out and leaning it forward, to favor the cutting and 
 enabling him to brace it across to the tongue. 
 
 Mr. McCormick is the only man known to us who ever placed a 
 reel-post vc\ front of the culler, on the side of the machine that runs 
 in the grain. Bell's machine had no reel-posts. The reel was sup- 
 ported by bearers extending horizontally from the frame in rear of 
 the revolving apron on which the grain fell, and these bearers had 
 no supports in front or at the side of the apron, thus leaving the 
 whole space from the front of the divider to the rear of the apron, 
 free from any obstruction to cutting the grain, or to throwing it off 
 at either side. Schneblv, and Randall, and Moore and Haskell, all 
 placed their reel-posts in rear of the cutters. 
 
 If a patent had been asked for on the original machine, for placing 
 the reel-post on the side of the standing grain, in front of the sickle, 
 the application, so far as originality was concerned, would certainly 
 have been entitled to success; and probably no new inventor would 
 have attempted to improve upon the machine in that direction. 
 
 This machine of McCormick's was still constructed for a man to 
 walk at the side and rake off the grain. This idea of walking at 
 the side of the machine to rake off the grain, appears to have been 
 exclusively Mr. McCormick's, he being the only man known to us, 
 who ever constructed a machine to be used in that manner. 
 
 His next claim to invention is for putting a seat for the raker 
 upon this machine, in a certain location, for which he obtained a 
 patent on the 23d of October, 1847. 
 
 In this patent of 1847, he claims, besides the seat for the raker, 
 the changing the position of the gearing from the rear of the driv- 
 ing wheel to the front of it; but he soon abandoned this arrange- 
 ment and placed the gearing back again in rear of the driving wheel, 
 which leaves the seat as the only material thing in this patent. But 
 we here insert both claims, which are in the following words, to wit: 
 
 " What I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters patent, 
 bearing date the 2ist of June, 1834, anc ^ * ne 3 Ist: ^ January, 1845, 
 is placing the gearing and crank forward of the driving wheel for 
 protection from dirt, etc., and thus carrying the driving wheel fur- 
 ther back than heretofore, and sufficiently so to balance the rear part 
 of the frame and the raker thereon, when this position of the parts, is 
 combined with the sickle, back of the axis of motion of the driv- 
 ing wheel, by means of the vibrating lever, substantially as herein 
 described. And I also claim as my invention, the. arrangement of 
 the seat of the raker over the end of the finger piece, which projects 
 beyond the range of fingers, and just back of the driving wheel, as 
 described, in combination with, and placed at the end of the reel, 
 whereby the raker can sit with his back towards the team, 
 and thus have free access to the cut grain laid on the platform and
 
 37 
 
 back of the reel, and rake it from thence to the ground, by a natural 
 sweep of his body, and lay it in a range at right angles with the 
 swath, as described, thereby avoiding unevenness and scattering in 
 the discharge of the wheat, us well as accomplishing the same with 
 a great saving of labor." 
 
 The inventions claimed in these patents of 1845 and 1847, maybe 
 briefly summed up thus: Bending the bearers of the knife case 
 downwards; adopting Moore and HaskelPs reversed angled sickle; 
 so forming his guards, when he adopted the reversed angle and con- 
 sequently cut both ways, that they presented the same angle to the 
 line of the edge of the sickle, that they did on the side against which 
 the grain was cut in the old machine; putting on the divider iron; 
 moving the reel post back; changing the gearing to the front of the 
 driving wheel; and putjting on a raker's seat. And in making 
 these improvements, as common-place as they all are, he had the 
 benefit of the suggestions of the mechanics who built the machines, 
 and the farmers who used them. 
 
 In January, 1851, Mr. McCormick gave public notice that he had 
 since the harvest of 1850, made an important improvement in his 
 reaper. Which improvement consisted in substituting Moore and 
 Haskell's scolloped sickle in place of the straight one. This -was 
 indeed an important improvement to him, for as the scolloped sickle 
 had been brought into competition with the straight one, the latter 
 fast sank into disrepute. And furthermore, this improvement was 
 adopted at an important time for hirrl, just as he was preparing for 
 the world's fair. 
 
 We have noticed all of Mr. McCormick's pretentions to invention, 
 so far as they have come to our knowledge, and without stopping 
 to comment upon them, we submit in connection with the facts here 
 set forth, the question of his merit as an inventor, to the decision of 
 the reader. 
 
 Strip the machine of those things which have been con- 
 fessedly the invention of other men, and borrowed (to use no harsher 
 term) from them, and what is left as the result of his inventive 
 genius, would hardly be worth an application to Congress to per- 
 petuate. 
 
 Take away the'reel, which was invented by Bell, and was in use 
 in this country, both by Randall and Schnebly before McCormick 
 commenced; take away the position of the -horses in front of the 
 machine, invented by Randall, Schnebly and Hussey, nearly simul- 
 taneously, and place them behind the machine to push it, as used by 
 McCormick, in further imitation of Bell; take 'away the reversed 
 angle of the sickle which was included in McCormick's patent of 
 1845, after it had been invented and used ten years by Moore & 
 Haskell in New York and Michigan; and take away the still later
 
 38 
 
 and more important improvement, of the scalloped edged sickle, 
 which he has since borrowed from the same men, and leave him his 
 sickle, cutting' during only half its motion; and take away the seat, 
 which was borrowed from Hussey and Randall, and place his raker 
 on the ground by the side of the machine, and the reader can then 
 judge what there is left original and valuable in McCormick's ma- 
 chine, as the result of his invention. 
 
 In that condition the machine might with propriety claim kindred 
 with the daw when stripped of ,his borrowed plumage; and although 
 it would doubtless still have its triumphs at the World's Fair, they 
 would not have been of the kind which receive medals as their 
 reward. 
 
 There are some steps in the progress of these inventions to which 
 we would call especial attention. . 
 
 The change of the position of the horses from the rear to the 
 front of the machine, is believed to be the chief improvement upon 
 previous efforts, which has rendered the reaping machine practically 
 useful. A little reflection will satisfy any person, that, although 
 grain might be very well cut with a machine pushed forward by 
 horses harnessed behind it, the difficulties attending its management 
 would effectually prevent its introduction, in that form, into general 
 use. It is the change in this respect, far more than any other, which 
 has given the American reaping machines their success. There is 
 no other point which might not be supplied from the foreign ma- 
 chines, but this could not. 
 
 For this we are indebted to Mr. McCormick. He, however, 
 adopted it soon after its invention. This change may be considered 
 a very simple one, but it had not occurred to the foreign inventors, 
 nor to Mr. McCormick. 
 
 The method of cutting by knives, operating somewhat upon the 
 principle of shears, had been invented by Bell, and was used by 
 Randall and Schnebly, prior to McCormick's experiments, and is still 
 used by Hussey with excellent success. 
 
 The use of the straight blade, having an edge like that of a sickle, 
 with the teeth inclined all in one direction, seems to have been 
 original with Mr. McCormick. But as that would cut during the 
 motion of the blade in one direction only, it could not operate suc- 
 cessfully, except in ripe, dry grain, free from grass or weeds. With 
 care and attention it could be used, but its defects prevented any 
 general use of the machine for nearly ten years after the patent was 
 obtained. It can hardly be doubted that if Mr. McCormick had 
 not adopted, as he did in 1845, the reversed angle of the sickle, as 
 invented by Moore and Haskell, his machine would never have 
 been introduced into general use, and now, since, the invention of 
 the scalloped edged sickle by the same men, it would be entirely
 
 39 
 
 abandoned, were it not for the use, by McCormick, of that invert 
 tion alsq. t 
 
 The seat, which constitutes the substance of his patent of 1847, 
 was the only point of controversy in the suit before alluded to 
 against Seymour & Morgan, tried at Albany in October last. 
 
 The' seat was first used by McCormick in 1845 (though perhaps 
 tried the'fall previous.) For more, than ten years after his first 
 patent, the raker walked by the side of his machine, to rake oft 
 the grain. It was proved on that trial, that during the harvest of 
 1844, McCormick and Hussey,, with their respective machines, 
 operated one day side by side, in the same wheat field in Virginia, 
 the raker upon Hussey's machine riding upon the machine to per- 
 form the raking, whilst McCormick's raker walked by the side of 
 his machine. The next season (1845) McCorrmck placed a similar 
 seat for the raker upon his machine, and for placing it there, 
 received letters patent from the United States as tne reward of his 
 invention. 
 
 It will be seen that the McCormick seat was quite different from the seat as 
 patented by Hussey (see cut attached),, which was more properly a reeler's seat 
 than a raker's seat, as his fake performed' more the function of the reel in the Mc- 
 Cui inick machine. In Hussey's machine the man reached forward into the stand- 
 ing grain with his rake and carried it back to and against the cutters, and left the 
 grain deposited on the ground directly in the rear of the machine and in the way 
 of the horses on their next round (rear delivery). The McCormick rake was very 
 different, as it carried the grain across the machine and left it deposited on the 
 ground at its side and out of the way of. the horses on their next round (side de- 
 livery). Hussey, therefore, may well claim that with his machine he did not need 
 a reel.
 
 4 o 
 
 It was not claimed upon the trial, on the part of McCormick, that 
 the seat was his invention, or the placing it upon the reaping ma- 
 chine; but that he was the first to use a seat upon a machine having 
 a reel; (Hussey uses no reel), and upon this ground his patent was 
 sustained, and he obtained a verdict of upwards of $17,000 'for a 
 single year's infringement of his patent for that great invention. 
 
 It was not then known to the defendants that Mr. Randall had 
 made the same invention, of both seat and reel, and had used 
 them together successfully for several years, more than ten years 
 before Mr. McCormick had attempted to. put a seat upon his ma- 
 chine. 
 
 We have no right to object, and do not object to Mr. McCor- 
 mick's using other men's inventions, to any extent which may suit 
 his convenience (so long as the real inventors remain quiet), nor to 
 his reaping any harvest, however rich, of fame and money, as a 
 reward for the exercise of his genius in that direction. But when 
 the extraordinary power of Congress is invoked to perpetuate for 
 /n's benefit, the monopoly of such inventions, we regard it as both a 
 right and a duty to protest against it, and to call to the subject, so 
 far as we are able, the public attention. 
 
 That the main features of the patent of 1834 (which is now 
 Sought to be renewed), indeed all the things embraced in that patent, 
 which are of any value, were not invented by Mr. McCormick, or 
 if invented by him, that he was not the first inventor, we think 
 sufficiently appears from the report of Professor Page, which we 
 have here given; but if any doubts remain after reading that report, 
 they will be removed by a careful examination of the inventions to 
 which reference has been here made. 
 
 Much has been said in the public prints of this country In relation 
 to the success of McCormick's reaper in England. : Whether the
 
 4 1 
 
 then pending suit to which we have alluded, and the contemplated 
 application to Congress for a renewal of the patent, had any ten- 
 dency to inflate, beyond their natural dimensions, the newspaper 
 articles on the subject, we have no means of knowing. But in order 
 that the just extent of that much lauded triumph may be under- 
 stood and appreciated, we append hereto an account of the last 
 trial between McCormick's and Hussey's reapers in England (which 
 were the only machines tried, when McCormick's great victory is 
 supposed to have been won), together with the verdict of the jury 
 selected to decide upon the merits of the two machines. The ac- 
 count is taken from the London Farmer's Magazine for November, 
 1851. 
 
 "The decision of the merits of the two American reaping ma- 
 chines, brought into competition at the Middlesborough meeting 
 of the Cleveland Agricultural Society, terminated exactly as we 
 expected. We stated that, at the first day's trial, the only decision 
 which could be made, was, that the one showed it could do work 
 which the other would not. A more favorable day was selected 
 fora second trial, especially on ridge and furrow, and in lodged 
 corn; and we stated we were much mistaken if the decision did pot 
 turn out to be in favor of Hussey's machine, and not to the one 
 which obtained the medal at the Great Exhibition. Our opinions 
 are shown by the event to be correct. The jury appointed con- 
 sisted of good country names of practical men: 
 
 "Rev. William Fitzwilliam Wharton, rector of Birmingham, 
 Richmond, foreman; John Thomas Wharton, Esq., Skelton Castle, 
 Guisborough; Mr. John Parrington, Brancepeth, Durham; Mr. 
 William Morley, Dishforth,Thirsk; Mr. John Mason Hopper, New- 
 ham Grange, Middlesborough; Mr. Joseph Parrington, Crossbeck 
 House, Middlesborough; Mr. George Reade, Hutton Low Cross, 
 Guisborough; Mr. Robert Fawcitt, Ormesby, Middlesborough; 
 Mr. William Hill, Stainton, Middlesborough; Mr. Joseph Coulson, 
 Sexhovv, Stokesley; Mr. Thomas Parrington, Marlon, Middles- 
 borough; Mr. Joseph Harrison, Ormesby, Middlesborough. 
 
 "The following were the instructions of the jury, and the points 
 to which their attention was to be directed: 
 
 "'The machines to be tried on wheat and barley, in such order 
 and for such lengths of time as the jury may direct. 
 
 " ' The jury to have full power to use any means they may deem 
 advisable, in order to put the machines to the severest trials. 
 
 " k The jury, in deciding on the merits of the two machines, to 
 take into their consideration 
 
 '" i. Which of the two cuts corn in the best manner? 
 
 "'2. Which of the two causes the least waste? 
 
 " ' 3. Which of the two does the most work in a given time?.
 
 42 
 
 " c 4. Which of the two leaves the cut corn in the best order for 
 gathering and binding? 
 
 "'5. Which of the two is best adapted for ridge and furrow? 
 
 "<6. Which of the two is the least liable to get out of repair? 
 
 '"7. Which of the two, at first cost, is less price? 
 i" ' 8. Which of the two requires the least amount of horse labor? 
 
 "'9. Which of the two requires the least amount of manual 
 labor? 
 
 '" And whichever of the two machines so tried and tested has in 
 it the greater number of the above qualifications, according to the 
 opinions of a majority of the jury, is to be pronounced the best 
 instrument. 
 
 "' Middlesborough, Sept. 1851.' 
 
 " The trial came off as we have before described, and the follow- 
 ing was the award of the jury: 
 
 " ' The jury regret exceedingly the most unfavorable state of the 
 weather on the days of trial (a perfect hurricane raging the whole 
 of the first day), and their consequent inability to make so full and 
 and satisfactory a trial as they could have wished. 
 
 " ' Tne machines were tested on a crop of wheat, computed at 25 
 bushels per acre, very much laid; and on barley 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 consid- 
 eration in the order in which they occur above, express 
 
 "'i. Their unanimous opinion that Mr. Hussey's machine, as 
 exhibited by Messrs. William Dray and Company, cut the corn in 
 the best manner, especially across ridge and furrow, and when the 
 machine was working in the direction the corn lay. 
 
 "'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 considera- 
 tion, that Mr. Hussey's did the 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, 
 foreman to Messrs. Bellerby, of New York, a practical mechanic of 
 acknowledged ability, whose report is appended. 
 
 " ' 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.'
 
 43 
 
 " ' The trials took place on the farm of Robert Fawcitt, of 
 Ormesby, near Middlesborough-on-Tees, who, 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. 
 
 " ' The jury cannot conclude their report without expressing the 
 great pleasure they have derived from seeing two machines brought 
 into competition that are 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. 
 
 " * Mr. Robinson, on question 6, says, ' Having carefully examined 
 both machines, and given the subject due consideration, I am of 
 opinion that McCormick's reaping machine, as at present made, is 
 most liable to get out of order.' 
 
 W. F WHARTON.' "
 
 EXTRACTS FROM 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. 
 
 As to the theoretical portion of the business, the inquiry might be 
 greatly extended, indeed, for past centuries, as we have imperfect 
 accounts of reaping machines being used by the Romans. 
 
 It was not until near the close of the past, and within the present 
 century, so far as we can learn, that the subject again claimed much 
 attention of the inventive talent of either this, or foreign countries. 
 Of some half dozen or more attempts made in Great Britain, and 
 recorded in Loudon's Encyclopaedia of Agriculture, the Edinburg 
 Encyclopaedia, .and other similar works, all, or nearly all, relied 
 either upon scythes or cutters, with a rotary motion, or vibrating 
 shears. And although there was " go ahead " about them in one 
 sense of the term, as it was intended for the " cart to go before the 
 horse," none of them appeared to have gained, or certainly not long 
 retained, the confidence of the farmers, for at the exhibition of the 
 " World's Fair in London," 1851, the whole Kingdom could not raise 
 a reaping machine a practical implement which was considered 
 worth using and exhibiting. 
 
 The excitement and sensation 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 endeav- 
 oring 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, Plunkett, Gladstone, of Castle 
 Douglass, Salmon, of Waburn, Smith, of Deanston in Perthshire, etc., 
 etc. none were waked up from their Rip Van Winkle slumbers, 
 or if they were the world is not advised of it. They all used re- 
 volving scythes, revolving cutters, or shears instead. Several trials 
 were made with Bell's in 1828 or 1829, and a very full and minute 
 description with plates was published some twenty-four or twenty-
 
 five years ago, and may be found in London's Encyclopaedia of 
 Agriculture. 
 
 It was, however, too complicated, too cumbersome and expensive, 
 performed too little service, and required too much tinkering and 
 repairs to be viewed as a practical and available implement. The 
 English farmer found the sickle or reap hook preferable, for it was 
 everywhere resorted to. The cutting apparatus of Bell's consisted 
 of shears, one half stationary, the other vibrating and turning on 
 the bolt that confined them to the iron bar which extends across the 
 front of the frame. The vibrating motion was given by connecting 
 the back ohd of one shear to a bar making the bolt the fulcrum 
 and which was attached to a crank, revolving by gear to the driv- 
 ing wheels. 
 
 A reel was used to gather the grain to the shears, and adjustable, 
 back and forth, and higher or lower, to suit the height of the grain. 
 A revolving apron delivered the grain in a continuous swath, and 
 the team was attached to the rear of the machine, -pushing it 
 through the grain. 
 
 We have been more minute in the description of Bell's machine, 
 because it may have been the foundation of some of the early and 
 nearly simultaneous attempts made in this country. In fact it does 
 not admit of doubt that several were nearly identical with Bell's in 
 the use of the shears and reel, though with much more simple gear- 
 ing, and in the general arrangement. Whether they were original 
 inventions cannot be ascertained. In this country, from 1800 to 
 1833, out of some fifteen or twenty patents granted for "cutting 
 grain" and "cutting grass," only four appear to have been "re- 
 stored " /. ., technically speaking, " not restored " in models and 
 drawings after the burning of the Patent Office in 1836. Many, if 
 not most of them, were probably improvements in the grain cradle, 
 and mowing scythe; though the names are preserved, there is no 
 record to show for what particulars the patents were granted. 
 There can be no doubt, however, that the inventors considered them 
 valueless, as they were " not restored," though Congress voted 
 large sums to replace the burnt models and drawings, without any 
 expense to the parties. Of those restored, James Ten Eyck's patent 
 is dated 1825, William Manning's in 1831, William and Thomas 
 Schnebly's in 1833, and Obed Hussey's also in 1833. 
 
 James Ten Eyck used an open reel; not only to gather the grain, 
 but his cutters or shears were attached to, and revolved with the 
 reel very much, if not exactly, on the principle of shearing 
 cloth. 
 
 William Manning used another form of cutters, and quite differ- 
 ent from James Ten Evck's. He likewise used fingers or teeth to 
 support the grain during the action of the horizontal cutters.
 
 William and Thomas Schnebly, of Maryland, also use.d the; reel, 
 with shears as cutters, very similar to Bell's. 
 
 Abr'm Randall, or Rundell, of New York (for the name is spelled 
 both ways), was another of the early inventors. His patent of 
 1835 is not restored, though it is stated his machine was experi- 
 mented with as early as 1833 or 1834. He also used the reel, and 
 his cutters, it is said, were similar to Bell's using shears. 
 
 T. D. Burrall, of New York, was also one of the early inventors, 
 about 1832 or 1833, Dut we believe professedly after Bell's, so far 
 as to use a reel and shears. 
 
 We now come to 1833, the date of Hussey's patent, and to 1834, 
 the date of C. H. McCormick's first patent. These were known 
 and admitted by all to have been the rivals for popular favor and 
 patronage, from about the year 1844 or 1845 to the opening of the 
 great Industrial Exhibition in London, in 1851. To these, therefore, 
 the enquiry will be more particularly directed. 
 
 We must, however, refer back for a brief period to 1831; for 
 although C. H. McCormick's first patent was dated in 1834, yet, 
 when he applied for his extension in 1848, he alleged that his mven- 
 iiun was prior to Hussey's, as he had invented a machine in 1831, 
 two years before the date of O. Hussey's, and three years before 
 the date of his own patent. The evidence produced (written and 
 prepared by C. H. McCormick and now on file in the patent office) 
 was deemed inadmissible and informal by the board, and it refused 
 to go on with the examination either as to priority or validity of in- 
 vention, without notice to Hussey his patent being called in ques- 
 tion by McCormick to be present when the depositions 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 considered evidence; i.,e., considered formal; alleging 
 that it would save him trouble and expense in going to Virginia. 
 This was declined by Hussey on the ground ihat he might thus un- 
 wittingly injure himself, he having previously applied for an exten- 
 sion of his own patent^ Neither was he then aware of the nature 
 of this evidence; nor, until this interview, was he advised of C. H. 
 McCormick's application for extension. 
 
 Hussey was subsequently duly notified by order of the board to 
 be present at taking the depositions in Augusta county, Virginia, the 
 board having adjourned three weeks for that purpose. 
 
 Either just previous, or subsequent to these proceedings, the case 
 "was referred by the commissioner of patents, or board of extensions, 
 .to Dr. Page, one of the examiners of the office. 
 
 His report is as follows:
 
 47 
 
 "PATENT OFFICE, January 22, 1848. 
 
 "SiR: In compliance with your requisition, I have examined the 
 patent of Cyrus H. McCormick, dated 3ist June, 1834, anc * found 
 that the. principal features embraced in said patent, viz., the cutting- 
 knife and mode of operating it, the ringers to guide the grain, and 
 the revolving rack for gathering the grain, were not new at tht! 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. Hus- 
 sey, patented 3ist December, 1833. 
 
 "The revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its oper- 
 ation is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, patented 
 2nd November, 1825. 
 
 " Respectfully submitted. 
 
 --.-__ " CHAS. G. PAGE, Examiner. 
 
 " Hon. Edmund Burke, Coni'r of Patents" 
 
 As some have inquired, and others may inquire, 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 in- 
 ventions, or into preceding patents; the applicant made oath as to his 
 invention, and the patent was issued as a matter of course. And, 
 as another matter of course, if the rival interests clashed, litigation 
 was the result: the courts and juries often decided what they little 
 understood, and at times not at all, after the pleading of well feed 
 lawyers. 
 
 This testimony was taken in due form at Steele's tavern, Augusta 
 county, Virginia, McCormick and Hussey both being present. It is 
 too voluminous to copy entire, but we will refer briefly to each, 
 having read them carefully, and obtained certified copies of all, from 
 the patent office. 
 
 Dr. N. M. Hitt testified to a reaping machine being made by C. 
 H. McCormick in 1831; it had a straight sickle blade. 
 
 William S. McCormick and Leander J. McCormick, brothers of 
 C. II. McCormick, also testified to the making of a machine in 
 1831. 
 
 Mary McCormick, mother of C. II. McCormick, agreed in gen- 
 eral with the testimony of her sons; did not doubt but it was cor- 
 rect; "it appears familiar to me," but testified to nothing in 
 particular. 
 
 John Steele, Jr. Was tavernkeeper at " Steele's tavern"; testi- 
 fied 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.
 
 4 8 
 
 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 i83J. 
 
 John McCowan was a blacksmith; testified that he made the 
 "straight sickle blade," and that it was "a long, straight sickle" 
 blade. 
 
 This was most singular testimony to found a claim of priority of 
 invention on, and by which to invalidate another man's patent. 
 There was discrepancy in the evidence as to the year of the inven- 
 tion; also whether the machine was intended for one or two horses; 
 how the " fingers " were arranged, and whether of wood or iron, 
 above or below the " straight sickle blade." Two of the brother* 
 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 nine to ten years afterwards! 
 
 John McCowan swears positively that he helped to build the ma- 
 chine, so far at least as to forge " a long straight sickle," but neither 
 he, or a single one of the seven sworn witnesses, " ladies and gen- 
 tlemen" testify that the machine ever worked a single hour, or cut 
 as much grain of any kind as would make a single sheaf! 
 
 The record shows that "on March 29, 1848", the board met 
 agreeably to adjournment- -present, James Buchanan, secretary of 
 state; Edmund Burke, commissioner of patents, and R. H. Gillet, 
 solicitor of the treasury and having examined the evidence ad- 
 duced in the case, decide that said patent ought not to be extended." 
 (Signed) JAMES BUCHANAN, Sec 1 }' State. 
 
 EDMUND BURKE, Comnfr Pafs. 
 R. H. GILLETT, Solicitor Trcas'y, 
 
 On page 231 of the Reports of Juries for the Great London Ex- 
 hibition, and now in the library of Congress, we find the following: 
 
 " It seems right," says Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., " to put on 
 record Mr. McCormick's own account of his progress, or some 
 extracts at least, from a statement written by him, at my request." 
 
 [PUSEY.'] 
 
 " My father was a farmer in the county of Rockbridge, State of 
 Virginia, United States. He made an experiment in cutting grain 
 in the year 1816, by a number of cylinders standing perpendicularly. 
 Another experiment of the same kind was made by my father in 
 the harvest of 1831, which satisfied my father to abandon it. 
 Thereupon my attention was directed to the subject, and the same 
 harvest I invented and put in operation in cutting late oats on the 
 farm of John Steele, adjoining my father's, those parts of my present
 
 49 
 
 reaper called the platform, for receiving the corn, a straight blade 
 taking effect on the corn, supported by stationary fingers over the 
 edge, and a reel to gather the corn, which last, however, I found 
 had been used before, though not in the same combination. 
 
 " Although these parts constituted the foundation of the present 
 machine, I found in practice innumerable difficulties, being limited 
 also to a few weeks each year, during the harvest, for experiment- 
 ing, so that my first patent for the Reaper was granted in June, 
 1834. 
 
 " During this interval / was often advised by my father and fam- 
 ily to abandon it, and -pursue my regular business as likely to be 
 more profitable, he having given me a farm. [Italicized by C. II. 
 McC.'| 
 
 " No machines were sold until 1840, and 1 may say that they 
 \vere not of much practical value until the improvements of my sec- 
 ond patent in 1845. 
 
 " These improvements consist in reversing the angle of the sickle 
 teeth alternately the improved form of the fingers to hold up the 
 corn, etc., an iron case to preserve the sickles from clogging, and a 
 better mode of separating the standing corn to be cut. Up to this 
 period nothing but loss of time and money resulted from my efforts. 
 The sale has since steadily increased, and is now more than a thou- 
 sand yearly." 
 
 It would be just as conclusive and reasonable for the father of C. 
 H. McCormick to claim at this day priority of invention for his 
 Reaper, invented in 1816, " by a number of cylinders standing per- 
 pendicularly; " or for " the invention made by my father in the har- 
 vest of 1831, which satisfied my father to abandon it." This 
 authority, high and official as all must admit it to be (and italicized, 
 -too, by the writer, for a particular object), clearly proves that the 
 invention of 1831 was an abortion, for, if the principle was effective 
 to cut one acre of grain properly, any man of common sense knows 
 that it was equally so to cut one thousand acres; but so complete 
 was the failure, that, "during this interval" between 1831 and 
 1834 " 1 was o ft- cn advised by my father and family to abandon it, 
 and pursue my regular business, as likely to be more profitable, he 
 having given me a farm" 
 
 Again: " No machines were sold until 1840, and I may say that 
 they were not of much practical value until the improvements of 
 my second patent, in 1845." What these improvements were we 
 are also informed: "These improvements consist in reversing the 
 angle of the sickle teeth alternately, the improved form of the fin- 
 gers to hold up the corn, etc., an iron case to preserve the sickle 
 from clogging, etc. Up to this period nothing but loss of time and 
 money resulted from my efforts."
 
 This letter is the most perfect and complete estopper to priority of 
 invention not only for 1831, but to 1841 inclusive, if not to 1845, 
 that could be penned. His pen cuts a " cleaner swath," as we farmers 
 say, than ever did his Reaper; and this letter, at least, is certainly 
 C. H. McCormick's own "invention," which no one else can lay any 
 claim to. Yet, strange as it may appear, he contended before the 
 Board of Extensions, in order to invalidate Hussey's patent, that he 
 invented a reaping machine nine years before! So has perpetual 
 motion been invented a hundred times in the estimation of the 
 projectors; and, by his own showing, and on oath, he sold but two 
 machines up to 1842 one of them conditionally sold being eleven 
 years after the alleged invention, and even they had to be re-in- 
 vented to make them work, or use the previous inventions of 
 others. 
 
 In this letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., C. H. McCormick ad- 
 mits that the reel " had been used before," yet he includes it in his 
 patent of 1834. Both the specifications and drawings in the Patent 
 office conclusively establish the fact that James Ten Eyck patented 
 the reel or " revolving rack," or " revolving frame" in 1825, used 
 not only to gather the grain as all such devices are used, but by the 
 knives attached to it, also intended to cut it off. 
 
 It is certain the reel was "no novelty," either in 1831 or 1834, 
 when patented by C. H. McCormick; he tells us so himself; and it 
 is most likely the father of C. H. McCormick also used a reel for 
 his " cylinders standing perpendicularly, in 1816," and also for his 
 other plan in 1831, and " which satisfied my father to abandon it." 
 And it is-equally probable that most of the " fathers "" and the sons, 
 who invented reapers for a hundred years preceding the date of 
 Hussey's patent, used reels; indeed the reel seemed to be the sine 
 qua non by many; most of the inventors we have any clear account 
 of resorted to the reel. 
 
 We will now examine another invention patented by C. H. Mc- 
 Cormick, in 1847. We here assert and challenge a denial, that 
 from 12 to 14 years after the alleged invention of a reaper by C. H. 
 McCormick in 1831, and from 9 to 12 years after the date of his 
 patent, in 1834, ms ra ker -walked by the side of his machine, while 
 Hussev's raker rode on the machine as they always had done since 
 his first machine that cut the grain like " a thing of life," in Hamil- 
 ton couYity, Ohio, in 1833. Yet, in 1847, C. H. MeCormick takes 
 out a patent for the raker's scat! This was a ^" novelty," and well 
 worth a patent! 
 
 His patent of 1847, covering some four or five folio pages, is 
 altogether to change " the construction of the machine," to admit of, 
 and to patent the raker's seat; the substance of the whole is com- 
 prised within the following brief extract from the patent of 1847:
 
 " And the gearing which communicates motion to the crank is placed back of the 
 driving wheel, which is therefore subject to be clogged by sand, dirt, straw, &c and 
 hi consequence of the relative position of the various parts, the attendant is obliged to 
 walk on the ground by the side of the machine^ to rake the cut grain from the platform 
 as it is delivered and laid there by the reel. These defects which have so much 
 retarded the introduction into practical -and general use of reaping machines, I have 
 remedied by my improvements, the nature of which consists in placing the driving 
 wheels further back than heretofore, and back ofthe gearing which communicates 
 motion to the sickle, which is placed in a line back ofthe axis ofthe driving wheel, 
 the connexion being formed, &., and also bringing the driving wheel sufficiently 
 far back to balance the /rame of the machine -with the 'raker on it, to make room for 
 him to sit or stand on the frame," &c., &c. " which cannot 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 
 considered reliable, he certainly had not invented a seat for his raker 
 as late as 1845 and no; long prior to 1847, when he patented it; 
 and \\\\. fourteen years after Hussey had used it every year, success- 
 ively. The raker's seat therefore was just as original an invention 
 as the reel. 
 
 The " straight sickle blade " but cut one way only, and abandoned 
 some 10 or 12 years after its conception in 1831, as he states, appears 
 to be the only original idea properly belonging to whom it may 
 in the patent of 1834. As to tne " foundation " of the machine, viz: 
 the platform, cog-wheels, cranks, &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 North Western 
 States 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, Raker's seat, &c.
 
 A BRIEF HISTORY 
 
 OF THE ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 , INCLUDING A FEW INCIDENTS FROM THE LIFE OF 
 
 ROBERT M C CORMICK, 
 
 AS IT APPF.ARED IN THE " FARMER'S ADVANCE," MARCH, 1882, PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 McCORMICK HARVESTING MACHINE COMPANY, 
 C. H. McCORMICK, PRESIDENT. 
 
 THE INVENTOR OF THE REAPER. 
 
 He to whom this title belongs needs no introduction to the 
 farmers of this or any other country, and yet a brief outline of 
 some incidents in the life of the man whose brain conceived the 
 practical idea of reaping grain by machinery, and whose business 
 tact and managemenf made that idea a success, will not be with- 
 out interest to those using the machines bearing his name. 
 
 Cyrus Hall McCormick is the eldest son of Robert McCor- 
 mick and Mary A^nn Hall McCormick, and was born in Rock- 
 bridge Count}', Virginia, February I5th, 1809. His father was a 
 native of Rockbriclge, and his mother a native of Augusta County, 
 in the same State, and both were of Scotch-Irish descent. The 
 father (Robert McCormick) was a farmer, owning several farms, 
 with saw and grist mills, and having shops for blacksmithing, car- 
 pentering, machinery, etc., in which his own mechanical ingenuity 
 and that of young Cyrus found scope for exercise and experiment. 
 The facilities for acquiring an education in those days were very 
 limited, and if a boy became educated it was more through the 
 natural aptitude of a brilliant mind, in reading lessons from nature 
 and artificial and mechanical surroundings, than from any advan- 
 tages offered by the common schools. Born on a farm, and in- 
 heriting from his father an inventive turn of mind, he very early 
 in life saw that agriculture stood in great need of inventions to 
 enable it to achieve its highest possibilities, and when only fifteen 
 
 52
 
 53 
 
 years of age he gave some evidence of what has since distin- 
 guished him, by constructing a " cradle," which he himself used in 
 the harvest field. 
 
 The elder McCormick (Robert) was the inventor and patentee 
 of several valuable machines, among which were those for thresh- 
 ing, hydraulic hemp-breaking, etc. 
 
 In 1816 he devised a reaping machine with which he exper- 
 imented in the harvest of that year, and when baffled and disap- 
 pointed in his experiments, he laid it aside and did not take it up 
 again until the summer of 1831. He then added some improve- 
 ments to it, and again tested its operation in a field of grain on his 
 farm, when he became so thoroughly convinced that the principle 
 upon which it was constructed could never be practically successful 
 in cutting any promiscuous crop of grain as it stands in the fields, 
 that he at once determined to abandon all further efforts at making 
 it a success. The radical defect in his machine was that it sought 
 to cut the grain as it advanced upon it in a body, by a series of 
 stationary hooks placed along the front edge of the frame work, 
 having an equal number of perpendicular cylinders revolving over 
 and against the edge of the hooks, with pins arranged on the per- 
 iphery of the cylinders to force the stalks of grain across the edges 
 of the hooks, and so carry the grain in that erect position to the 
 stubble side of the machine, there to drop it in a continuous swath. 
 These different separations of the grain at the different hooks along 
 the front edge of the frame work, for such subsequent delivery in 
 .swath at the side of the machine, especially in a crop of tangled, 
 grain, were found to be impracticable. 
 
 The son's first effort in the improvement of agricultural ma- 
 chinery after having made his cradle was in the construction of a 
 "hill side " plow,* patented in 1831, for throwing alternate furrows 
 on the lower side, being thus a right or left-hand plow. This plow 
 was, however, superseded by a very superior one invented by him, 
 called the self-sharpening horizontal plow, for which letters patent 
 were granted to him in 1833. The latter plow was simple, strong 
 and durable, and did excellent work as well on level as on hilly 
 ground. And but for the fact that the mind and efforts of the 
 inventor became more absorbed in the pursuit and improvement of 
 the greater invention of his reaping machine about this time, which 
 actually prevented him from supplying the rising demand for this 
 plow, he believed it would have become, properly managed and 
 manufactured, a valuable and highly appreciated implement of hus- 
 bandry, being the first perfect self-sharpening plow ever invented. 
 
 In 1831, when but twenty-two years old, a short time after his 
 
 *See letter of W. S. McCofmick, page 9, as to invention of plow.
 
 54 
 
 father had made the final trial of his machine, Cyrus H. McCormick 
 invented the machine which has made his name so famous, and con- 
 ferred upon mankind such unnumbered benefits. 
 
 After observing the character of the experiment made with his 
 father's machine, he came to the conclusion that ripe grain, standing 
 as it is usually found, and in a more or less tangled state, could only 
 be successfully harvested by taking it as a body, without the separa- 
 tions at different points along the cutting apparatus (as done by his 
 father's machine). It then occurred to him, that to cut and save the 
 grain properly, a sufficient motion for that purpose given to an edged 
 instrument was only necessary, and that in advancing upon the body 
 of grain to be cut by a machine, the requisite motion in addition to 
 the forward motion of the machine, might be supplied laterally by 
 a crank attached to the end of a reciprocating blade. This principle 
 as invented by Mr. McCormick, is the foundation of all reaping 
 machines. 
 
 In 1831, the reaper triumphed in the harvesting of several acres 
 of oats. The following year it cut fifty acres of wheat. For several 
 years, while experimenting with, exhibiting its operation in the field, 
 and working the reaper himself ("though operating well in his hands) 
 he deemed it best to postpone putting it in market. 
 
 . His first patent was granted in 1834. In 1845 he removed to 
 Cincinnati, for the purpose of establishing himself there, and dur- 
 ing that year he obtained a second patent for several valuable im- 
 provements. Additional patents were granted for still more valuable 
 improvements in 1847 and 1848. 
 
 About the year 1850 the two brothers of Mr. McCormick, 
 William S. and *Leander J., both younger than himself, were intro- 
 duced into his business at Chicago. In 1859 they were associated 
 with him as partners in the manufacturing, and have rendered 
 important assistance in the business; William S. being at the head 
 of the office department, and Leander J. at the head of the manu- 
 facturing department; and the latter is now the vice-president of 
 the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company. - In the death of 
 his brother, William S., in 1865, Mr. McCormick sustained a great 
 loss. He was a man of rare excellence of character and superior 
 business abilities. 
 
 Owing to the various modifications that the world of intellect 
 employed in the business of reaper building, when the free use of 
 Mr. McCormick's expired patents gave them the fundamental prin- 
 
 * See extract from C. H. McCormick's memorial to Congress, page 17, in which 
 he states that, in the year 1847, " I gave my brother (L. J. McCormick) a one-third 
 " part in that contract, to induce him to attend to the manufacture at that place 
 " (Cincinnati)." Leander J. McCormick came to Chicago in 1848 as a partner, 
 whtre he has remained ever since, not all the time as a partner
 
 55 
 
 ciples to work upon, fierce competition commenced, which has been 
 continued to the present day. 
 
 With dauntless courage Mr. McCormick pressed forward against 
 this united opposition, and at all times he has had the satisfaction of 
 seeing his machines acknowledged as the best manufactured. He 
 has been the champion in every contest in which his machine has 
 ever been engaged, beginning with a trial with Obed Hussey's ma- 
 chine in 1843, at Richmond, Virginia, where a jury of judges ap- 
 pointed by the spectators upon the field, awarded him the victory. 
 And as evidence of his subsequent triumphs, he holds the gold med- 
 al of the American Institute, given in 1849; the only prize, the grand 
 council medal, given at London in 1851; the grand gold medal giv- 
 en at Paris in 1855; the grand prize gold medal given at London in 
 1862; the silver medal, the highest prize awarded at a field trial in 
 Lancashire, England, in 1862; the grand gold medal given at Ham- 
 burg in 1863; the grand prize given at Paris in 1867, the highest 
 honor of that great exposition, together with the decoration of the 
 Cross of the Legion of Honor; two grand gold medals given at 
 Vienna in 1873; tvvo bronze medals, the highest prize given at Phila- 
 delphia in 1876; the grand gold medal of the Royal Agricultural 
 Society of England, in a competitive trial of self wire-binding har- 
 vesting machines, in 1878; the onlv grand prize given for harvesting 
 machines at Paris, in 1878, together with the decoration of the Offi- 
 cer of the Legion of Honor, with the election by the French Insti- 
 tute as a member of the Academy of Sciences in the department of 
 Rural Economy, as having done more for the cause of agriculture 
 than any other living man. 
 
 In 1879 ^e- McCormick machines were awarded the highest 
 prize at the International Exhibition at Sydney, and in 1880 the 
 highest award a gold medal for every variety of harvesting ma- 
 chinery at the World's Fair at Melbourne, Australia. In August, 
 1 88 1, the McCormick Twine Binder (the latest addition to the list 
 of these famous harvesting machines) received from the Royal 
 Agricultural Society of England the gold medal for the most per- 
 fect twine binder, after competition at Derby, England, with all the 
 prominent machines from Great Britain and America. 
 
 These triumphs were the results of hard-fought battles, in which 
 the competing machines vere not always the strongest point of the 
 enemies' line, but unreasonable prejudice was. At the World's 
 Fair in London in 1851, before the trial which resulted in a grand 
 victory for Mr. McCormick's reaper, the London, Times character- 
 ized the machines as " a cross between an Astley chariot, a wheel- 
 barrow and a flying machine." This expression of ridicule voiced 
 the foreign sentiment which met Mr. McCormick at this first inter- 
 national exhibition, but his. victory was so absolute that this same
 
 journal pronounced the reaper " the most valuable contribution to 
 the exhibition, and of sufficient value alone to pay the whole expenses 
 of the exhibition." Thus, through the difficulties that would have 
 disheartened a less determined man, he pressed steadily forward, 
 giving battle to all who offered battle, until the world freely 
 acknowledged him to be the inventor of not only the first, but also 
 of the best reaping machine. 
 
 Unlike most other great inventors,M r. McCormick has had the busi- 
 ness tact, shrewdness and energy to become the manufacturer of 
 the machine he invented, and to keep it in point of superiority far 
 in advance of all its competitors or imitators during the past fifty 
 years, and at the same time to push its sale throughout the civilized 
 world to such an extent that its name is a household word literally 
 at the ends of the earth. 
 
 Perhaps the distinguishing trait in Mr. McCormick's character 
 that has more than anything else tended to crown all his under- 
 takings with success, has been his invincible will and indomitable 
 courage. 
 
 Sometimes he seems to a stranger slow and cautious in making 
 up his mind to any course of action, but when once his mind is 
 made up, he is as firm as the everlasting hills in his purpose, and 
 nothing seems capable of thwarting that purpose. 
 
 No impediment is too great, no combination of difficulties too 
 intricate, and no opposition too strong for him to overcome. He 
 can wait and patiently bide his time to accomplish a purpose, but 
 when action is necessary at any time he resolves and executes with 
 promptness and decision. 
 
 Mr. McCormick has lived in Chicago since 1847, and in the 
 bright evening of his days lives to enjoy the well-merited honors 
 and riches he has earned. 
 
 We suppose Mr. McCormick has been the recipient of more 
 honors from the hands of his fellow-men of all ranks and stations 
 from the hired laborer in the harvest field to the emperor on the 
 throne than any other living inventor, and yet he is one of the 
 most modest and unassuming of men, while rounding out the meas- 
 ure of his life at the head of the great business bearing his name 
 and in the midst of his happy family, in deeds of benevolence and 
 philanthrophy. 
 
 His name will go down to posterity as one of the great benefac- 
 tors of the human race, whose victories have been won in the suc- 
 cessful effort to lessen toil and bless mankind.
 
 ACCOUNT OF HONORS AWARDED IN EUROPE. 
 
 The following is an extract from an article which appeared in the Chicago 
 Tribune of January 1, 1880, headed 
 
 "THE TRADE BOOM." 
 
 HARVESTING MACHINERY. 
 
 " It remained for this last and greatest, the Exposition Universalle 
 of 1878, to fittingly crown the inventor and his work. There the 
 McCormick harvester and inventor received the great prize gold 
 medal, being the only harvesting-machine to receive this dis- 
 tinction; though other machines, and the McCormick as well, were 
 given lesser honors. 
 
 " While the exposition thus singled out this harvester for the 
 highest honors in its power to bestow, the inventor, Mr. Cyrus H. 
 McCormick, was decorated by the French nation as an officer of 
 the Legion of Honor for his distinguished services to mankind. 
 
 " But one other American of fame, and it must be all the more 
 gratifying to the recipient that, in both cases, the proud guerdons 
 have been won through victories in peace rather than war. But 
 France has not yet done with showering honors on the head of the 
 inventor, for that world-famed body of savans, the Institute of 
 France, recognizing that Mr. Cyrus H. McCormick had done more 
 to elevate agriculture than any other man the world has produced, 
 elected him to membership. 
 
 "In 1878, also, the McCormick received the unprecedented dis- 
 tinction of a gold medal from the Royal Agricultural Society of 
 England, at the Bristol trials, where a great number of harvesters 
 were tried by the most crucial of tests. 
 
 " Mr. McCormick is a plain, unpretending, hard-working citizen 
 of Chicago, who undoubtedly values most highly of all his victories 
 the simple-recognition by the people of all the civilized world of the 
 superiority of the McCormick harvester over all others. And this 
 is shown by the widely extended and constantly increasing demand 
 for these harvesters, which necessitates, each year, increasing facil- 
 ities for manufacture. 
 
 " The McCormick reaping and mowing machines were never so 
 popular as now, and the company manufacturing them (the old or 
 new) never more prosperous than now." 
 
 67
 
 The foregoing letter brought out, shortly afterwards, tiie following article in Thi> 
 Factory and Farm, January 15, a journal of American agricultural industries and 
 farm implements, published in Chicago: 
 
 Was McCormick the Inventor of Harvesting Machinery ? 
 
 And as such was he entitled to the honors received by him from 
 
 France? 
 
 The Tribune of Jaimary ist, in its extra, purports to give facts 
 and figures regarding " The Trade, Commerce and Manufactures 
 of Chicago." Under the head of " Harvesting Machinery," some 
 statements are made so utterly untrue and contrary to the records, 
 that, in justice to the public, they should be flatly cotradicted as 
 they deserve. The article in question glorified C. H. McCormick 
 as " the great inventor " of harvesting machines, the great genius 
 which ( ?) evolved the idea and perfected the invention which has 
 been of such untold benefit to mankind "; and referring, to his -suc- 
 cess in France, tells us that " it remained for this last and greatest, 
 the Exposition Universal of 187,8, to fittingly crown the inventor 
 and his work " by giving the McCormick harvester and binder the 
 first prize, and by loading him, the supposed inventor, with 
 decorations and unusual honors. Now, while we have no dispo- 
 sition to question the merits of the so-called McCormick harvester 
 and binder, which, without doubt, is a good machine though the 
 iudgment of foreigners as to its value is of no consequence we 
 do assert that C. H. McCormick was not entitled to any of the 
 honors showered upon him as its inventor. To be more explicit, 
 he not only did not invent this said machine, nor mechanically as- 
 sist in the combinations of the inventions of others which produced 
 it, but he never invented or produced any essential elementary part 
 in any reaping or harvesting machine from first to last. These 
 assertions are broad, but absolutely true. They stand squarely 
 upon the records and the history and state of the art. C. H. 
 McCormick, or any one for him, cannot deny them with proofs, 
 therefore he is not entitled to recognition as the man who " had 
 done more to elevate agriculture than any man the world has 
 produced," because of his supposed inventions in this line; but, 
 on the contrary, that the development of Western agriculture 
 has elevated him, and that he has more money, and received more 
 honors, " than any man the world has produced," by appropriating 
 the brains of others, and the credit due them as inventors, are 
 propositions m'uch more defensible. Without questioning his
 
 59 
 
 ability as a business man .and manufacturer, but with reference to 
 these assumptions of invention only, let us search the records: A 
 short history of the progress of reaper invention, with facts and 
 figures, will be interesting information. For a better understand- 
 ing of .the subject, let it be understood that the essential features 
 of a grain-harvesting machine (first assuming that it must have 
 carrying wheels atjd frame) are the sick-le and guard, the platform 
 to receive the cut gra.in, and the reel to assist in the cutting and 
 laying 'of the cut grain upon the platform, and there must be 
 also some method of delivering the grain from platform to ground, 
 either by manual operation or automatic devices. These are ele- 
 mental principles rnot one of them the, invention of C. H. McCor- 
 mick. Machinery mounted on wheels, for harvesting grain, was 
 used in Gaul, and known also to the Carthaginians about the be- 
 ginning of our Christian era, and all the essentials above described 
 were invented, combined, and publicly, though not generally, used 
 in Great .Britain during the early part of this century. 
 
 American invention seems to have begun in 1803, when Richard 
 French and R. T. Hawkins, of New Jersey, showed a reaper hav- 
 ing ground and grain wheels, with horses attached at side and for- 
 ward of cutting bar, as is usual now. From December 28th, 1805, 
 to August 8th, 1828, twelve patents were granted by the United 
 States on reapers. In 1831 Wm Manning, of Plamfield, N. J., in- 
 vented a a practically operative machine, which did good work, and 
 was very little different from the ordinary reaper in use twenty or 
 twenty-rive years ago; but the man who is mtitled to the most 
 credit, as- inventor and pioneer in this business, is Obed Hussey, 
 who, December 3ist, 1833, patented the machine (successfully oper- 
 ated in previous harvest, well known and in use since to this day), 
 which combined all the main features except the reel, which was 
 then an old device of practical reapers, down to the time, at least, 
 when " harvesters " so-called came into the field. Hussey's machine 
 was introduced into Illinois in 1834, anc * in New York, Missouri, 
 Pennsylvania and Maryland in following years. Mark that all 
 these came before C. H. McCormick, who, in June, 1834, obtained 
 his first patent, in which he particular!}' claimed a vibrating sickle 
 having smooth edge, or toothed like a saw. His other devices 
 were unimportant or not novel, and these special claims proved 
 useless, and were discarded by himself when he made machines 
 for the public. The " great idea " which he then " evolved " 
 added substantially nothing to the progress of the art. Some 
 twenty-five or thirty reaper patents were issued, and several differ- 
 ently named machines manufactured between this time and his 
 next evolution, January 3ist, 1845, which latter consisted chiefly in 
 claims for lance-head-shaped guards, and reversed serratures on a
 
 6o 
 
 sfraight-edged sickle. One devjce proved not novel, as it had 
 been used by Moore & Hascal from 1835 to 1839. And both 
 " great ideas " were of such " untold value to mankind," that but 
 few could now tell what they were. His other patents cover de- 
 tails or points peculiar to his own machines, and are not elemen- 
 tary. At this time there were several manufacturers of reapers, 
 which latter were then, and for some years after, of the old style, 
 from which the cut grain was delivered upon the gi'oiind through 
 manual operation; and the next great advance was the applica- 
 tion of automatic devices to perform this function. Reapers thus 
 constituted were known as "self-rakers." C. H. McCormick, in- 
 stead of " keeping pace with the march of time," kept on building 
 the old style of machine year after year, while other manufac- 
 turers were inventing, perfecting and developing the self-raker, 
 until finding at last that he was falling entirely to the rear, he 
 bought up some and settled for other self-rake patents, and com- 
 menced building that style of reaper. In the meantime no one 
 was paying tribute to McCormick for the use of his " great in- 
 ventions." He tested the strength of his patents in suit against 
 the Manny's, and got beaten, but Hussey sued him and obtained 
 judgment. Other manufacturers had invented, perfected and in- 
 troduced the jointed-bar, two-wheeled mowers, after which he began 
 manufacturing them, and again he was sued and judgment ob- 
 tajned. About 1860 a machine having marked peculiarities was 
 brought out by the Marsh Bros, in DeKalb County, UK It car- 
 ried two binders, and being of entirely different style and shape 
 from ordinary' reapers, it was called a " harvester." Its manufac- 
 ture began at Piano, in 1*863, since which time it has been con- 
 tinually before the public. Everybody knows that it is the pio- 
 neer harvester the founder of the class now known by that 
 general name. From 1870 and onward several other harvesters 
 sprung up and were manufactured, differing more or less in minor 
 points from the Marsh. Again C. H. McCormick had failed to 
 keep his place " in the van " he was the. last man in the rear 
 for he, in connection with his partners (who seem to be generally 
 ignored), only commenced building harvesters in 1875, a d with 
 the usual luck of such pioneers, they were soon after sued for in- 
 fringement by the Marsh Bros. suit is still pending. Next year 
 the Withington binder was attached, and the new combination was 
 dubbed the McCormick Harvester and Binder. Except some 
 minor points in attachment of parts, there was no invention in 
 the case, and the little credit of making this. successful combination 
 of others' ideas is due to his partners, who did the work for which, 
 as the supposed inventor, he has absorbed all the honors. Long 
 before the}- built their harvester and binder, the other manufac-
 
 6i 
 
 turers, notably Walter A. Wood & Co., had developed and were 
 placing such machines on the market in large numbers. 
 
 Each grand step in the development and perfection of harvest- 
 ing machinery was bitterly opposed by C. H. McCormick in prac- 
 tice and in precept, until it had established itself in spite of him, and 
 had forced him to " keep pace with the march of time," for he 
 was the sort of pioneer that hangs on the tail of progress. And 
 from the facts herein given, people can draw their own conclu- 
 sions as to whether France did well in thus " showering honors 
 on the head of the great inventor " this " plain and unpretend- 
 ing citizen " who so modestly wears his hard-earned laurels, but 
 seems to want the public often reminded why and where he got 
 them, in which laudable effort we hereby humbly assist.
 
 NOTARY PUBLICS CERTIFICATE. 
 
 State of Illinois, ) 
 
 COUNTY OF Du PAGE, j 
 
 I, JAY P. SMITH, a NOTARY PUBLIC in and for and 
 residing in the County of Du Page and State aforesaid, DO 
 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing, carefully read, by me, 
 is a true and complete and correct copy of the original pamph- 
 let entitled "MEMORIAL OF ROBERT McCORMICK" 
 that was published by Barnard & Gunthorp, Printers, 44 and 46 
 La Salle Street, Chicago, Illinois, in the year of 1885. 
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
 and NOTARIAL SEAL, this ist day of June, A. D. 
 
 JAY P. SMITH.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 ), ^UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482
 
 A 000721 153 5