LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 GIFT OF" 
 
 i 
 Accession No.fo fa ?.jr . Class No. 
 
329 Wabash Avenue, 
 Chicago, July, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir : / 
 
 We beg to send you, for your library, a 
 copy of a work entitled, "Who Invented 
 the Reaper?" 
 
 During the last century great progress 
 has been made along all the lines of light- 
 ening human labor; especially in the devel- 
 opment of agricultural implements has this 
 progress been marked, and the Reaper has 
 done more than any other article of field 
 machinery to relieve the farmer of his 
 harvest burden the gathering of his crops. 
 
 This small book is the result of investi- 
 gation into the historical records upon this 
 subject, and will be interesting to the student 
 of history, as showing that the honor of the 
 invention of the first successful Reaper rests 
 with the late Cyrus H. McCormick. We 
 trust that it may be acceptable, and find a 
 place upon your shelves. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 McCORMICK HARVESTING 
 
 MACHINE COMPANY. 
 
 
C 
 
WHO LNVENTED THE REAPER? 
 
 AN ANSWER TO THE PROTEST STATEMENT SAID TO 
 
 HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE TREASURY 
 
 DEPARTMENT 
 
 
 R. B. SWIFT. 
 
v 
 
 S 
 
 J 
 
nrx 
 
 WHO INVENTED THE REAPER? 
 
 AN ANSWER TO THE PROTEST STATEMENT SAID TO HAVE 
 BEEN FILED AT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 
 
 By R. B. Swift. 
 
 This Protest was recently published anonymously. It undertakes 
 to prove that Hussey invented the reaper, and therefore the picture of 
 Cyrus H. McCormick should not be put on a new banknote. The Pro- 
 test, as published, was prefaced by the statement that it was prepared 
 by the representatives of the manufacturers of harvesting machines, and 
 that "The opportunity will at last be presented to settle the question 
 forever." Let any who are interested in this subject read the facts 
 herewith given and judge for themselves as to the merits of the case. 
 
 The question is not, Who first had an idea that it would be de- 
 sirable to reap by machinery? but Who made the first machine that 
 worked successfully? A flying machine that could carry passengers to 
 Xew York in five hours would be a great invention. Many have planned 
 and built and patented flying machines, yet no one has produced a suc- 
 cessful one, and the man who will combine the devices that will make 
 a practical flying machine is truly the inventor, even though he make 
 use of levers, springs, frames and devices that others have tried and 
 with which they have failed. 
 
 Before the year 1831 there are accounts of attempts to make a 
 reaper, and some of the machines, it is said, did a few hours work 
 when all conditions were favorable. One or two of the earlier ma- 
 chines had devices that, since being combined in a practical way with 
 other devices, have found a place in the successful reaping machine. 
 It is claimed that Ogle, in 1822, combined more of the elements neces- 
 sary for success than any other inventor, but the one machine he 
 claimed to have built lacked certain necessary features, and he did not 
 
arrange some of those he had so they would operate. His machine 
 failed. Not one was sold. He did not even take a patent and the world 
 profited nothing by his labors. With the knowledge gained from fifty 
 years of experience with reapers, it is pointed out that only a few 
 changes would have been necessary for him to have produced a suc- 
 cessful reaper. He was a schoolmaster, a visionary inventor without 
 mechanical skill, and his reaper was, and would to-day be, a failure. 
 
 Bell, in 1828, built a push-machine, a great ark on four wheels, 
 having a cutting device consisting of shears with blades sixteen inches 
 long. A few of these machines were built, but " from their intricacy 
 they fell into disuse." Bell's countrymen have claimed the invention 
 of the reaper for him, but have failed to show that his machine was or 
 could be a success. 
 
 The Protest also refers to Pitt's machine. This machine was not 
 even a reaper, as it did not have a cutting apparatus. It had a re- 
 volving cylinder with rows of combs to strike into the heads of grain 
 and tear them off. It was a failure. Randall's machine is also men- 
 tioned as having been operated in New Jersey in 1833. Randall made 
 a model which he exhibited at a Mechanics' Fair in Utica, N. Y., on 
 January 15, 1835. His patent was issued in April of 1835 and his first 
 machine built for the harvest of 1835. The machine was a failure. 
 It was so pronounced a failure that Randall did not restore his patent. 
 Along in the fifties Randall was a willing witness for pay, and made an 
 ex parte affidavit in the McCormick vs. Seymour & Morgan suit, 
 swearing his invention 'back to 1830. Having never built a machine 
 for sale, it is not to be wondered at that he sold his recollection, but 
 under the stimulus of pay it was too active. He was produced for 
 cross-examination and convicted by the testimony of his own son and 
 others of swearing falsely and of altering his model. So clearly was 
 Randall convicted that Mr. Justice Nelson did not even refer to him 
 in his charge in that case. He referred to the machines of Bell, 
 Schnebly, Hussey, Moore and Hascall, Reed and Woodward, saying: 
 
 " With the exception of the patent and machine of Hussey, not 
 one of the machines referred to ever went into general or successful 
 operation. Why they failed we do not know. What was the secret, 
 what the defects, we are not told. All we know is that they were un- 
 successful experiments." 
 
 Whatever question there is lies between McCormick and Hussey. 
 
Both McCormick and Hussey had machines in the harvest of 1833, 
 and both applied lor patents before the harvest of 1834. There is an 
 account of Hnssey's machine published in the fall of 1833, an( ^ one 
 
 MECHANICS' MAGAZINE, 
 
 REGISTER OF INVENTIONS ANT) IMPROVEMENTS. 
 
 To the Eiluor .>f the >! : 
 DKAK SIK, -f >('' 
 jtloscriptiwt . 
 ibSy t<y your r 
 
 [A"*!**CR *. 
 
 . of a friciKi t JeH iJwrat of 
 
 H. M COSMIC*. 
 
 : -ir rf w M.J, with bent t<?*th ; i', reel poHy ; W, 
 rce! ; X, \ h-rf-1 <>l" 16 taehe* <Jianler ; Y, re*l post. 
 
 Machine, agrof a. The |>lat{bnn A is of plank, made fast to 
 
 a frrtm<' of wood, for receiving tlo grain whea 
 
 it until enough ha 
 
 of McCormick ? s in the Lexington Union and in the Mechanics' Maga- 
 zine, also in the fall of 1833. Hussey sent the editor of the Mechanics' 
 Magazine a picture of his machine in 1834, and so did McCormick. 
 
6 
 
 The photolithographic cuts in this article are reproductions of these 
 pictures. 
 
 I.-WHO WAS FIRST WITH A MACHINE * 
 
 The history of Hussey's reaper as herewith presented shows that 
 it never was a success. As McCormick's was a success, it therefore 
 makes no difference which one was first in point of time. But in ad- 
 dition to this the facts clearly demonstrate McCormick's priority. 
 
 In the suit of McCormick vs. Manny, Hussey testified on the 28th 
 day of August, 1855, and was asked this question and gave this answer: 
 
 "Have you invented and used any reaping machine, and if so, 
 how long since? 
 
 " I invented and used a reaping machine in 1833." 
 
 Hussey never claimed an earlier date of conception than 1833. 
 He published a pamphlet in 1854, written by his friend, Edward Stab- 
 ler, entitled, " A Brief Narrative of the Invention of Reaping Ma- 
 chines/' in which is the following sentence: 
 
 " Neither Hussey nor anyone else for him has ever asserted that 
 his invention was prior to 1833." 
 
 In the Lexington Union, September 18, 1833, following a long 
 description of McCormick's machine, is the following testimonial : 
 
 " July 18, 1833. 
 
 " I have seen Mr. Cyrus H. McCormick's grain cutting machine 
 in operation for two seasons. It cut for me this season- I think it 
 will perform well where the ground is free of rocks and stumps ; and 
 will be a great saving "over hand labor and can be so constructed as to 
 cut much wider than at present, and I think it well worth the attention 
 of the public. I think it will cut about 12 acres per day by being well 
 attended. (Signed) JOHN WIER." 
 
 " I certify that Cyrus H. McCormick's reaping machine cut 1 1 
 acres of wheat for me on the sixth day of this month, and the grain was 
 cut clean and neat. 
 
 " July 13, 1833. WM. MOORE." 
 
 This Wier testimonial carries the McCormick machine back to 
 1832, and the Moore testimonial shows that it was a success. 
 
 The Mechanics' Magazine of April, 1834, contained the picture 
 of Hussey's reaper that we herewith produce. This came to McCor- 
 
mick's notice, arid he wrote the editor of that magazine from Rock- 
 bridge, Ya., under date of May 20, 1834, as follows: 
 
 " To the Editor of the Mechanics' Magazine: 
 
 "Dear Sir. Having seen in the April number of your magazine 
 a cut and description of the reaping machine said to have been in- 
 
 MECHANICS' MAGAZINE, 
 
 A :* D 
 REGISTER OF IXVEXTIOXS AXD D1PROVE3IEXTS. 
 
 night ! The mid would be as ricbcs coffered ; Their s 
 iiig&njoug society." SPECTATOR. 
 
 j;r--r.v s GRAI.V CCTTER, 
 
 vented by Obed Hussey, of Ohio, last summer, I would ask a favor 
 of you to inform Mr. Hussey and the public through your columns, 
 
8 
 
 that the principle, namely, cutting grain by means of a toothed in- 
 strument, receiving the rotary motion from a crank, with the iron teeth 
 projecting above the edge of the cutter, for the purpose of preventing 
 the grain from partaking of its motion, is a part of the principle of 
 my machine and was invented by me, and operated on wheat and oats 
 in July, 1831. This can be attested to the entire satisfaction of the pub- 
 lic and Mr. Hussey, as it was witnessed by many persons. Conse- 
 quently, I would warn all persons against the use of the aforesaid prin- 
 ciple, as I regard and treat the use of it, in any way, as an infringe- 
 ment of my rights. . . . The revolving reel, as I conceive, con- 
 stitutes a very important, in fact, indispensable, part of my machine. 
 " Very respectfully yours, etc., 
 
 " CYRUS H. McCORMICK.'' 
 
 As Mr. McCormick stated in this letter, the fact of his having suc- 
 cessfully operated his reaper in July of 1831 can be proven " to the en- 
 tire satisfaction of the public." The fact that he did so operate it in 
 1831 was not disputed for years, and Hussey admitted its use in 1831 in 
 a brief filed by him in 1848 before the Board of Commissioners for the 
 Extersion of Patents. Referring to McCormick' s testimony (at the 
 taking of which he was present) to prove the use of his machine in 1831, 
 Hussey wrote: 
 
 " There are but two points satisfactorily proved which are not in 
 the records of the Patent Office, to wit: the date of the first trial of 
 the machine, and the abandonment by C. H. McCormick of the double 
 finger/' 
 
 At this date there is* but one living witness of the working of the 
 reaper in 1831, and he, in 1848, testified under oath to its successful 
 operation in 1831. There are in existence numerous affidavits (as yet 
 unpublished) of persons who saw the reaper at work in 1831. There is, 
 also, on file in the Patent Office at Washington, D. C., the sworn tes- 
 timony of seven witnesses, taken in the spring of 1848, some of whom 
 v/ere cross-questioned by Hussey, to the fact that Cyrus H. McCor- 
 mick's reaper did successful work in the harvest of 1831. Fifty years 
 ago, when dozens of witnesses were living, no one disputed the fact 
 that McCormick's reaper successfully worked in wheat and oats in 
 the harvest of 1831, and no one who knows the facts disputes it now. 
 
 The Committee on Patents of the United States .Senate reported 
 March 30, 1852, when there were bills pending before the Committee 
 for the extension of both Hussey's and McCormick's first patents, as 
 follows : 
 
9 
 
 "The testimony was thereupon taken, in compliance with the or- 
 der of the Board, and by the proof submitted on the part of said 
 McCormick it appears conclusively that he invented his machine, then 
 practically and publicly tested its operation in the harvest of 1831." 
 
 And that " from' the exhibits referred to your committee, it ap- 
 pears that his (Hussey's) machine was first constructed and operated in 
 
 It was then that Hussey answered, saying that the priority of 
 McCormick should not affect his invention, as " our machines do not 
 conflict/' 
 
 The late Honorable Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents in 
 1848, wrote Senators Douglas and Shields, March 4, 1850, recom- 
 mending the extension of both Hussey's and McCormick's patents, 
 saying: 
 
 " The testimony of Mr. McCormick presented to the Board of 
 Extension clearly proved that he invented and put in operation his 
 machine in 1831, two years before the date of Hussey's patent. But 
 my opinion is that justice will be subserved by extending the patents 
 of both parties." 
 
 Neither, however, succeeded in obtaining an extension. 
 
 Mr. Justice Nelson, of the United States Supreme Court, in the 
 suit of McCormick vs. Seymour & Morgan, decided in 1855, among 
 other points, the following: 
 
 " It appears from the evidence in the case, that Hussey and Mc- 
 Cormick turned their attention to the construction of a reaping ma- 
 chine very nearly at the same period McCormick two or three years 
 ^earlier." 
 
 Hussey was a witness for Seymour & Morgan in this case. 
 
 It is submitted that the proof on the point of priority of McCor- 
 
 mick is conclusive. 
 
 II. -WHAT WAS MC CORMICK'S MACHINE OF 1831 AND HUSSEY'S OF 1833 T 
 
 Let us see which one contained the devices that time has demon- 
 strated as being essential to the successful reaping of grain. 
 
 (1) Methods of Draft. The pictures show that both machines 
 were drawn by teams, walking at the side of the grain. McCormick's 
 patent, which was issued June 21, 1834, describes both a pull and a 
 push machine, and the drawing of the patent, which is herewith repro- 
 
10 
 
 duced, Fig. I, shows the shafts for a 'horse in dotted lines at the front 
 and at the side of the grain, and the tongue behind. This plan of 
 
 Fig.l 
 
 PaienUd June.Zi 
 
 showing and describing alternate methods of construction was and 
 still is very common in patents. McCormick's idea was, that a ma- 
 chine with a wider cut could be made by pushing than by pulling at 
 the side, and, to effect this, the patent shows the pole behind attached' 
 to the rear of the platform nearer the center of the machine than the 
 pole or shafts could be. His platform being just the width of the fin- 
 ger-bar, allows the raker to walk at the rear of the frame of the ma- 
 chine and rake the gavel to the side out of the way of the team, if push- 
 ing behind, and out of the way of the team and machine in the next 
 round of the field, whether the machine be drawn or pushed. Hussey's- 
 patent shows and describes only a pull machine, because his platform 
 extended the full width of his finger-bar and frame and, therefore, was 
 not adapted to raking the gavel to the side, as was McCormick's. 
 HusseyVgavel was pushed off directly behind the finger-bar, and his- 
 machine therefore could not have been pushed, as the team would' 
 trample the gavels, nor could it make a second round of the field, even 
 as a pull machine, until the gavel of the first round had been removed 
 from the path of the team. This alternative system of draft described in; 
 the patent shows that McCormick had clear ideas in 1834 of a wider 
 machine, similar to the modern header, which must be pushed, and 
 of a narrower machine that could more handily be drawn. His ma- 
 chine was always drawn except on one occasion. The Protest, how- 
 ever, goes to unwarrantable extremes in insisting that the McCormick 
 
11 
 
 patent of 1834 shows only a push machine. Such a mistake could 
 only have been made by a writer ignorant of the subject, or with mal- 
 ice, publishing what he knew to be untrue. This is the main point of 
 the whole argument of the Protest, as is shown by the following quo- 
 tation : 
 
 " Several alleged representations of the 1831 machine have been 
 published, showing a horse in thills, drawing it, differing little from 
 the machine of the McCormick patent of 1845. If these representa- 
 tions are correct, then the machine of the McCormick patent of 1834 
 shows, practically, an abandonment of the principles of the alleged 
 machine of 1831, for in the patent the reaper was a push machine, 
 somewhat like the Bell of 1826, but mounted on two wheels only a 
 master wheel and a grain wheel. The tongue, as usual with these ma- 
 chines, extended reanvardly, but had nothing to prevent its end from 
 dropping to the ground, nor had it anything to prevent the draft of 
 the team from raising it. So constructed, it was not as controllable 
 as a wheelbarrow, for the load in the latter will keep the handles from 
 being turned over forward by the pulling action of the arms of the 
 operator. In order to prevent the machine from turning over forward, 
 due provision was made, however, for he says: The tongue is to be 
 supported by the horses by means of a pole, passing across their backs 
 between them, and resting on pad saddles. From this, a pole or chain 
 passes back to the tongue below and suspends it to the desired height. 
 With a machine of the header type in mind, it now seems strange that 
 the idea of supporting its push tongue upon the backs of the horses 
 ever occurred, and it seems equally strange that a man would ever sup- 
 pose that a team could be so driven as to steer such a machine. A 
 horse might be trained to run a wheelbarrow as a feat, but no one 
 would think of using such a combination for any practical purpose." 
 
 The quotation from the patent that is contained in the above ex- 
 tract, shows that the writer of the Protest must have had before him 
 a copy of che McCormick patent of 1834. What explanation, then, 
 can be offered for his failure to state that the patent also provided for 
 a plan of pulling the machine? Immediately after the description of 
 the plan for pushing the machine the patent describes how it can be 
 dr?wn. It says: 
 
 " One horse may work the machine from this side by substituting 
 shafts for the tongue.*' 
 
 Again, after speaking of a guide in front of the main wheel to de- 
 flect grain to the cutting apparatus, the patent states : 
 
 " This triangle is to be moveable on its screw r also, and it may be 
 removed altogether for the purpose of inserting shafts, so that the ma- 
 
12 
 
 chine may be drawn by one horse in this manner. The two headpieces 
 are to be lengthened, as also the curved brace projecting towards all of 
 them, about three or four feet. The two broad pieces will be connected 
 at their ends by a bar for the singletree, and, rising from the right 
 hand one near the end', an upright connects it with the curved brace, 
 and by the side of this upright rises another secured to its place to a 
 height sufficient to clear the reel. From this top a brace passes across 
 the reel to the opposite post. Below the inner shaft from the single- 
 tree end, is secured a longer bow or brace, projecting outward some- 
 what, and continuing along the direction of the shaft to the front of the 
 horse, where it passes around and joins to the other shaft, which has 
 been left purposely longer. The object of this bow is to throw the 
 stalk inward towards the cutting apparatus instead of the triangle re- 
 moved." 
 
 This language, quoted from the patent, is descriptive of a method 
 of pulling the machine as shown by the dotted lines of the drawing. 
 If the eyesight of the writer of the Protest is so poor that he could 
 not see the shafts in the drawing and the language in the specification 
 describing them, is it not fair to presume that his mental faculties are 
 so impaired as to render valueless anything he may write? It is a 
 weak cause that can only be maintained by misleading statements and 
 garbled quotations. Repeatedly during the past fifty years the article 
 from the Lexington Union of September 28, 1833, descriptive of Mc- 
 Cormick's reaper, has been reproduced and widely published. This 
 article says: 
 
 " This machine [referring to the McCormick reaper of 1833] is so 
 constructed as to leave a long or short stu'bble, to operate alike on tall 
 or short grain. It is drawn by one horse walking by the side of the 
 grain in shafts." 
 
 The paper then proceeds to give a full description of the machine. 
 The following testimonial in relation to the operation of the McCor- 
 mick reaper in the harvest of 1833 was published in the November, 
 1833, issue of the Mechanics' Magazine and Register of Inventions: 
 
 " I certify that Mr. C. H. McCormick's reaping machine with a 
 horse was employed by me in the late harvest and though I did not 
 work it much I was satisfied with its work. 
 
 " [Signed] JAMES M'DOWELL." 
 
 Mr. McDowell was Governor of Virginia in 1843. 
 Mr. William S. McCormick testified under oath in 1855, in the 
 suit of McCormick vs. Manny, as follows: 
 
13 
 
 " Cross-Question 175. How was the horse attached to that ma- 
 chine? 
 
 "Answer. I do not recollect whether the first machine was 
 worked by one or two horses; but whether or not, I well remember 
 that the horse or horses were always attached to the machine substan- 
 tially, as now done, using a pair of shafts or pole to suit one or two 
 horses, the horse, or horses, walking outside and alongside of the grain 
 to be cut, with the cutting apparatus on the left, as has been the case 
 ever since.' 7 
 
 The Protest makes long extracts from the communication which 
 Mr. McCormick filed in January of 1848, when he sought to have his 
 patent of 1834 extended. It must therefore be presumed that its writer 
 knew and suppressed the following quotation from the same communi- 
 cation : 
 
 '* The machine at the time of this experiment (1831) contained 
 all the essential parts that were embraced in the patent of June 21, 
 1834. It had a platform; the straight sickle with the vibrating action 
 by a crank; the fingers, or stationary supports to the cutting at the 
 edge of the blade, and projecting forward into the grain; the reel, and 
 the general arrangements by which the machine was balanced upon 
 two wheels, perhaps nine-tenths of the whole weight being thrown 
 upon the one behind the draft, thereby attaching the horses in front 
 and at one side." 
 
 Summarizing on the methods of drafts : 
 
 (a) The patents show that both machines were drawn by a team 
 walking outside the standing grain. 
 
 (b) McCormick's patent shows an alternative device so that the 
 machine could be pushed. 
 
 (c) The plan of Hussey's machine is such that it could not be 
 pushed. 
 
 (d) Accounts of McCormick's machine, published at Lexington, 
 Va., before any knowledge of Hussey's had penetrated that remote 
 neighborhood, show that the machine was drawn when at work in the 
 harvest of 1833. 
 
 (e) Sworn testimony of half a century ago and sworn statements 
 in 1847, f the inventor himself, show that the machine was always 
 drawn from the side. 
 
 (f) The picture of McCormick's machine, herewith published, a 
 reproduction of one published in 1834,. shows the pull method of draft. 
 
14 
 
 It is submitted that, as to the method of draft, the Protest is ut- 
 terly misleading and the conclusions drawn therefrom must fall. 
 
 (2) General Plan of the Machines. McCormick's machine was 
 mounted on two wheels, a main wheel which supported the greater 
 part of the weight of the machine, gave motion to the crank, recipro- 
 cated the knife and revolved the reel, and a grain wheel at the outer 
 end of the platform. Hussey's machine had three wheels at the stub- 
 ble side, all of which rested upon the ground. The tongue was piv- 
 oted loosely to the machine like the usual farm wagon tongue. The 
 platform was rigidly projected to the side, as shown in the picture. It 
 is plain, therefore, that it could not follow the inequalities of the 
 ground, and that any obstruction encountered by the wheels would 
 throw it up and down, leaving a washboard stubble. Hussey's patent 
 provided, however, that if a wide platform was to be used the machine 
 should have four wheels, the extra one at the outer end .of the platform. 
 It is evident that such a construction must have drawn as heavy as a 
 stone-boat. (See Fig. 2, taken from Ardrey's " American Agricultural 
 Implements.") Simply to reciprocate the knife and draw the machine 
 took four horses on the trot. 
 
 HUSSEY'S REAPER, 1833. 
 
 The McCormick construction is identical with that found in 
 modern reapers. The machine had a stiff pole, as have the reapers of 
 to-day, and balanced over the wheels, thus handling like a cart and 
 conforming to the surface of the ground. The weight was positioned 
 largely about the drive-wheel, thus giving power to move the operative 
 parts of the machine. McCormick stated this construction very con- 
 cisely in the following language, fifty years ago : 
 
 " The general arrangement by which the machine was balanced 
 upon two wheels, perhaps nine-tenths of the whole weight being- 
 thrown upon the one behind the draft, thereby attaching the horses in 
 front and at one side without the use of the separate two-wheeled cart 
 for the purpose of controlling the running of the machine upon its two 
 
15 
 
 nli eels, to accommodate itself to the irregularities of the ground 
 which construction I claim (and which Hussey adopted).'' 
 
 In explanation of this last statement Hussey remodeled his ma- 
 chine, adopting Mr. McCormick's plan, in 1841. In a long advertise- 
 ment in the American Farmer of 1842 Hussey states: 
 
 " Last year an entire change was made in the general structure 
 of my machine (see illustration, Hussey's reaping machine, 1841, 
 Fig. 3)-" 
 
 Summarizing on this point: 
 
 (a) The McCormick plan is the one in universal use at this day. 
 
 (b) Hussey abandoned his construction and adopted that of Mc- 
 Cormick. 
 
 It is therefore submitted that on the general construction of the 
 machine McCormick's plan was the success and Hussey's the failure. 
 
 (3) The Reel. The picture of the McCormick machine, the Pat- 
 ent Office drawings, and all the early newspaper accounts speak of 
 McCormick's reel. In the description of McCormick's machine in the 
 Mechanics' Magazine in 1833 it is stated: 
 
 " There is a reel, as it is termed, which is about 6 or 7 feet in di- 
 ameter, and the same length of the knife. This is made by framing 
 arms in each end of the shaft, say eight, the points of which are joined 
 together by pieces called ribs, parallel to the shafts. The reel is re- 
 volved as the machine advances by a band from the main wheel to 
 one on its shaft, the object of which is to draw the grain back to the 
 knife, which will be done whether straight or tangled, upright or lean- 
 ing, unless below an angle of 45 degrees, and to throw it upon the 
 apron." 
 
16 
 
 In a letter written by Mr. McCormick to the editor of the Me- 
 chanics' Magazine, in May of 1834, is the following: 
 
 " The revolving reel, as I conceive, constitutes a very important,, 
 in fact, indispensable part of my machine." 
 
 Attention is called to the fact that this reel is a reel that will do the 
 work. In all the reapers built by McCormick it could be adjusted 
 up and down and forward and back, the two movements of to-day. It 
 has been said that Bell had a reel, but the descriptions of it show that 
 the arms were only thirteen inches in length. Anyone experienced 
 in harvesting grain knows that such a reel would have no effect in 
 raising lodged and tangled grain, but, on the contrary, would roll it 
 ahead of the knife and be worse than useless. Hussey had no reel, 
 and never had. 
 
 The Protest says : 
 
 " In its perfected form (referring to Hussey's reaper) it may be 
 considered as existing in the manual-delivery reapers largely used in 
 Europe and extensively manufactured by the McCormick Harvesting 
 Machine Company, the Deering Harvester Company and others, as 
 shown by their annual circulars." 
 
 All Europe did not sell 1,000 of these manual-delivery reapers in 
 1896- The cut herewith (Fig. 4) will show the so-called "manual- 
 
 delivery reaper " that is now being made and sold. It is an attachment 
 for a mower, a makeshift for using the mower on the small European 
 farms (which average about five acres each), to reap a small patch 
 
17 
 
 of grain by the use of an extra man. Notice the position of the man 
 with the rake. He is seated well fonvard so that he can with his rake 
 do the work of the reel. The platform upon which the grain falls is 
 pivoted and controlled by the foot of the raker. When a bundle has 
 been reeled on to the platform by the man with his rake the rear end 
 of the platform is dropped into the stubble and the bundle slips off. 
 Xow, what about Hussey? The cut (Fig. 2) shows the raker on the 
 rear end of the machine pushing the bundle from the machine to the 
 ground. His position is such that he could not both act as a reeler 
 and a raker. The platform is not hinged, as in the present form of 
 reaping attachments, and as he could only push the bundle from the 
 machine, the horses are in a trot in order to strike the stalks of grain 
 with sufficient momentum so that the heads will fall to the rear, thus 
 in an impractical way trying to reap without a reel. 
 Summarizing on the question of the reel: 
 
 (a) McCormick's reaper from the beginning had a serviceable,- ad- 
 justable reel of practically the same diameter, and for the same purpose, 
 as the reels in use to-day. 
 
 (b) Hussey's machine had no reel, and never had. 
 
 (c) Because a few reaping attachments for mowers are now sold 
 to the small peasant farmers of Europe is a weak excuse for saying 
 that Hussey's reaper exists to-day. 
 
 (d) The reaping attachment of to-day has a tilting platform, a 
 divider, and the raker is positioned to do the work of reeling. Hus- 
 sey's had no tilting platform, no divider, and the raker could not both 
 reel and push the bundle from the rigid platform. 
 
 It is submitted that the reel is an essential part of a practical reap- 
 ing machine. Hussey did not have it, and therefore his machine was 
 a failure. 
 
 (4) The Divider. In McCormick's patent of June 21, 1854, is the 
 following description of the first divider ever used on a reaper and also 
 the first to be used in combination with a reel: 
 
 " On the opposite side of the machine is another reel post sup- 
 ported by a brace on each side . . on the outside of which piece 
 . . may be secured a bow in order to more effectually divide the 
 grain. . . . This reel, by the motion given by the strap, as the 
 horses advance, bears the stalks as they are projected inward 'by each 
 
18 
 
 end of the termination of the platform upon the cutter, and when 
 separated lands them on -the platform." 
 
 In the claim of the patent is the following : 
 
 " And also the method of dividing and keeping separate the grain 
 to be cut from that to be left standing." 
 
 In the newspaper article published in the Lexington Union in 
 September of 1833 is the following description of the divider: 
 
 " Alongside the apron, by the point of the knife, and extending 
 some distance before the knife, is raised a partition of cloth for the 
 purpose of dividing and keeping separate the cut grain from that 
 which is left standing.'' 
 
 The pictures of Hussey's machine will show that it had no divider. 
 Later, after Hussey had abandoned his two-wheeled cart and adopted 
 McCormick's construction of mounting the machine upon a main and 
 grain-wheel (Fig. 3), he stood a narrow board edgewise at the end of 
 his platform to protect the top of the grain-wheel from becoming 
 wound with grain and vines, but at no time during the life of the Mc- 
 Cormick patent of 1834 did he have upon his machine a divider pro- 
 jecting in front of the cutting apparatus to separate the grain to be 
 cut from that to be left standing. Practical men know that without a 
 reel or a divider Hussey's machine could not be a successful reaper. 
 
 The combined action of McCormick's divider and reel is essential 
 in reaping machines. The divider projected ahead of the finger-bar 
 and separated the swath to be cut from the grain to be left standing. 
 It threw the part to be cut inwardly so it could be acted upon by the 
 reel, and thus be separated before it was severed, and while its roots 
 held it to the ground. Judge Nelson stated in the case of McCormick 
 vs. Seymour & Morgan : 
 
 " That the plaintiff was seeking to obtain a divider, that would 
 not only divide the standing grain, but one that could be successfully 
 used for dividing grain, whether standing, or tangled, or lodged, or 
 broken. ... It seems from the testimony of all the witnesses 
 that there is no great difficulty in dividing the grain in the operation 
 of reaping when it stands erect. They say that the reel is of no great 
 utility where the grain is not tangled or leaning; that the operation 
 of Hussey's machine without the reel is as successful as that of any other 
 in cutting standing grain; that the difficulty commences in tangled 
 grain; and that, as great portions of the grain during the harvest, 
 portions, perhaps, of every field, are in that condition, a machine would 
 
19 
 
 be comparatively useless that could operate only on standing grain, 
 leaving that which is tangled to be cut by some other instrument." 
 
 Referring again to the reaping attachment (Fig. 4), attention is 
 called to the divider which projects in front of the finger-bar about 
 three feet, and which has welded to its point two solid iron rods that 
 extend rearwardly and upwardly and diverge at their ends, in order 
 to penetrate the grain and separate the swath to be cut from the grain 
 to be left standing. The raker, who, as has been heretofore explained, 
 uses his rake largely as a reel, assists the divider in separating the 
 grain and reeling it upon the paltform. 
 
 The Protest says : " In its (Hussey's) perfected form it exists in 
 the manual-delivery reaper." As it is plain that it is not the machine 
 which Hussey invented and built, the comparison is fatal as a support 
 to the claim that Hussey's was a practical reaping machine, for in 
 order to make the " manual-delivery machine " operative it must have 
 AlcCormick's divider and place a man with a rake to do the work of 
 McCormick's reel. 
 
 Summarizing on this point: 
 
 (a) McCormick's machine had a divider from the beginning. 
 
 (b) It had a divider in combination with a reel from the begin- 
 ning. 
 
 (c) Hussey's reaper did not contain a divider, during the life of 
 McCormick's first patent. 
 
 (d) The reaping attachment for mowers which has been called 
 "the Perfected Hussey Machine," clearly shows Hussey's reaper to 
 have been a failure, as the " manual delivery " has a divider, and posi- 
 tions a man upon the machine with a rake to do by hand the reeling 
 and dividing which the McCormick machine always did automatically. 
 
 It is submitted that, under this head alone, Hussey's machine 
 must be deemed a failure. 
 
 (5) The Platform McCormick's machine from the beginning 
 had a platform of the same width as the finger-bar. The raker was 
 thus enabled to walk behind or ride on the frame of the machine and 
 draw the accumulated gavel from the platform upon the ground at the 
 side of the machine, and out of the way in making the next round of 
 the field. 
 
20 
 
 Hussey's machine had a platform extending the full width of the 
 cutting apparatus and frame. The wide third wheel was placed be- 
 hind this platform, and the raker, who sometimes sat upon the plat- 
 form, pushed the accumulated gavel upon the ground immediately be- 
 hind the platform, and in the path of the team and machine in making 
 the next round of the field. This was the plan of the Hussey machine 
 so long as built. That it was unhandy and a serious disadvantage 
 is fully proven by the following quotation from the Genesee Farmer, 
 vol. 1 6, p. 308: 
 
 " Hussey's went on, and the gatherers had to> jump and run to 
 keep pace with the fleet horses. . . . McCormick y s worked very 
 easy and cut as close and regular as could be desired. There was not 
 a straw to be seen on the whole track over which it went ; the sheaves 
 were all beautifully arranged in line, with their butt ends nicely to- 
 gether, as nicely as if done by hand', with care. It cut so perfectly 
 straight that it took the last row at one cut and made a clean sweep, 
 not leaving a single straw to tell the tale. 
 
 " While all that was going on, Hussey worked up and down with 
 a legion of busy gatherers following the reaper at a quick step, hav- 
 ing a large quantity yet to cut. The poor horses, although young and 
 powerful, driven at a great speed, were completely exhausted. The 
 machine works heavily, it requires too much power to drive its pon- 
 derous knife. Having no side delivery, a number of men must in> 
 mediately remove the grain in order to clear the track for the next 
 cut; the men not having time to make neat work left the field strewed 
 with grain. In countries where manual labor is scarce, which is the 
 case everywhere during harvest, this machine could not be employed at 
 all except with a great loss of grain, being tramped out by the horses." 
 
 It can hardly be said that Hussey's machine was not a practical 
 reaper, solely because the gavel could not be delivered at one side. 
 But nevertheless the McCormick side-delivery plan has driven every 
 rear-delivery machine out of existence in America. 
 
 Summarizing on this point : 
 
 (a) McCormick's machine was constructed so that the raker 
 could deliver the grain at one side out of the way of the team in the 
 next round. 
 
 (b) Hussey's machine was constructed so that the bundle had to 
 be raked off directly in its path on the next round. 
 
 (c) Because of the absence of the reel and divider to get the 
 grain properly on the platform, it was impossible for Hussey's raker 
 
21 
 
 to draw the gavels to one side, even though in 1841 he adopted the 
 McCormick plan of mounting his machine upon two wheels. 
 
 It is submitted, on this point, that McCormick's machine had 
 greatly the advantage of Hussey's. 
 
 (6) The Cutting Apparatus. Whoever compiled the Protest for 
 the rival manufacturers was adroit in trying to narrow the successful 
 elements of a reaping machine down to the cutting apparatus. Es- 
 pecially is this so when they select Hussey as their hero, whose only 
 invention was an improvement in the cutting apparatus. 
 
 The Protest says : 
 
 " Twenty or 30 reaping machines had been invented before Hus- 
 sey's, but all were failures because they would not cut well. When 
 Hussey invented his successful cutting apparatus, he did what Howe 
 did for the sewing machine." 
 
 It is not my wish to detract from the honor justly due the many 
 who made improvements on the reaping machine; it is,however,neces- 
 sary in this case to show what the cutting apparatus was which Hussey 
 invented and used in 1833, and what was McCormick's of 1831. 
 
 To show that writers do not agree that reapers " were failures 
 because they could not cut well," I quote from the Genesee Farmer, 
 vol. iv, 1834, p. 154: 
 
 " Mr. Boyer made an ingenious apparatus to imitate the motion 
 and do the work of the bowed scythe. Even though it cut well, yet 
 it made wretched waste." 
 
 There could be many devices for merely severing the stalks were 
 is not necessary to handle the grain gently and preserve it. There 
 is more required of a reaper than to merely cut the stalks. Grain is 
 reaped solely that it may be saved, and the divider, reel and side- 
 delivery platform are more essential in the saving than would be a 
 cutting device which might have the many niceties of construction 
 found in the 500 or more patented improvements made since 1831. 
 Hussey's 1833 cutting apparatus is claimed as follows: 
 
 (a) "The straight horizontal saw with teeth sharp on their two 
 sides for cutting grain." 
 
 (b) "The guards forming double bearings above and below the 
 saw whereby the cutting is made sure, whether with sharp or dull edge, 
 the guards at the same time protecting the saw from rocks or sticks or 
 other large substances it may meet with." 
 
22 
 
 (c) "The peculiar construction that the saw teeth may run free, 
 whereby the necessary pressure and consequent friction of two cor- 
 responding edges cutting together as a pair of scissors, are entirely 
 avoided." 
 
 The drawing, Fig. 5, shows this cutting apparatus. Attention is 
 called to the fact that the " saw teeth are sharp on their two sides." 
 The saw teeth in use to-day are sharp only on one side. Leaving the 
 teeth sharp on two sides makes a bevel on both sides of the knife sec- 
 tion. This is what is meant in the third claim just quoted. 
 
 Every farmer's boy knows that a successful cutting device of to- 
 day is one that has " the friction of two corresponding edges cutting 
 together as a pair of scissors," the very element against which Hussey 
 so carefully provided. 
 
 The construction of this cutting apparatus of Hussey's must have 
 been known to the compilers of the Protest. If they did not know 
 of this fatal defect in Hussey's cutting apparatus of 1833, they should 
 not be writing so positively on the subject; if they did know, then they 
 are deceiving their readers. 
 
 That there may be no question of the drawing above (Fig. 5) cor- 
 rectly representing the Hussey cutting apparatus of 1833, I quote 
 from reissue letters patent No. 449, granted April 14, 1857, to Obed 
 Hussey: 
 
 " In my original invention, viz. : the reaping machine patented by 
 me in 1833, the upper part of the guards was fastened to the lower 
 part both before and behind the blades, as represented at C C, and 
 the grass, straw, etc., which was not perfectly cut was forced in by 
 
23 
 
 the shearing motion of the blades and worked back between the blades, 
 and the grass, materially obstructing the free movement of the blades, 
 in wet weather frequently caused what the farmers called choking. 
 ... In my original sickle, patented in 1833, the blades are ground 
 ic it h a bevel on both <iies of the edge; the purpose of this is that, by 
 means of the shoulder of the bevel, the sharp edge is prevented from 
 coming in contact with the finger, and when sprung or bent cutting 
 into the finger. ... By reason of this tendency of the scalloped 
 sickle to force the stalks across and thus entangle them upon the fin- 
 gers, all the modes heretofore devised of working this sickle were 
 apparently ineffective" 
 
 Hussey signed the above, under oath, in 1857, and the Patent 
 Office granted him a patent for an improvement on these statements. 
 
 Further proof seems unnecessary to show the failure of Hussey's 
 machine of 1833, after his own sworn statement in 1857. Neverthe- 
 less there are many facts, aside from his own statement, which would, 
 of themselves, effectually prove its failure. 
 
 In a brief filed in the Patent Office in 1848 Hussey disclaimed 
 everything in his first patent but his cutter, and described that as 
 
 "' Composed of a row of blades of lancet point shape, arranged 
 on a rod, side by side. / do not claim to be the inventor of such blades 
 but I claim them in combination with and vibrating through and into 
 double fingers." 
 
 A discussion, therefore, of the Hussey cutting apparatus is a dis- 
 cussion of his reaper. 
 
 Mr. W. X. Whiteley is one of the very few who now have the cour- 
 age to sign their communications, and who states, in a letter written 
 January 8, 1897, and published with the Protest: 
 
 " All reaping machines of the present day embody substantially 
 all of the vital principles given by Obed Hussey in 1833 and at different 
 periods thereafter-" 
 
 Possibly Mr. Whiteley 's memory is better now than it was in 1861, 
 when he had less interest in denying the invention of the reaper by 
 McCormick. All disinterested persons, however, will think that his 
 mind was as vigorous and his judgment on the question of invention as 
 good in 1861 as it is to-day. Hon. Samuel T. Shugert, Acting Com- 
 missioner of Patents, says in his opinion, given March i, 1861, in the 
 application of Eunice B. Hussey fo r an extension .of Obed Hussey's 
 patent: 
 
 " The counsel of Wm. X. Whiteley, the opponent of these exten- 
 
24 
 
 sions, have urged with great pertinacity that the inventions are not 
 novel." 
 
 Shugert's decision was rendered March i, 1861, andJLee & Fisher 
 were the attorneys for Whiteley. 
 
 On April n, 1861, the following letter was written to St. Louis 
 by Mr. Geo. M. Lee, of the firm of Lee & Fisher, Whiteley's attorneys : 
 
 "Cincinnati, April n, 1861. 
 " Messrs. Kingsland & Ferguson: 
 
 " Gents We write you at the instance of various of the mower 
 and reaper manufacturers who oppose the extension of McCormick's 
 patents. . . . We have taken much testimony in the case and ob- 
 tained a resolution of Congress giving us more time, until May n, to 
 take further evidence. Now this litigation is for the joint interest of 
 you all, and we have supposed all would sustain it. ... If Mc- 
 Cormick's patents are extended he will monopolize the entire business 
 and you will all either have to pay him $15 per machine or quit; for 
 although he was beaten in the Hussey case he has reissued his patents, 
 as you are aware, so as to cover every machine of any real value. All 
 he waits for now is an extension and he will begin a war on you all, 
 and it will be found almost impossible to beat him in court on these 
 reissues. They are prepared with great care, but he can be beaten in 
 the Patent Office, and he must be beaten now or never. . . . 
 Please, therefore, take hold and help us beat the common enemy. 
 . . . Subscriptions have ranged from $100 to $1,000. Respect- 
 fully, LEE & FISHER, by G. M. Lee. 
 
 " P. S. Send in also to the Patent Office some hundreds of re- 
 monstrances, if you can, like this. There is no postage to pay. 
 " ' To the Commissioner of Patents of U. S.: 
 
 " ' We oppose the extension of C. H. McCormick's patents. He 
 has made money enough off the farmers. [Signed by hundreds.] ' ' 
 
 Mr. Whiteley has always opposed McCormick, but it is difficult to 
 see how he could in 1861 have thought " that McCormick's patents will 
 monopolize the entire business and cover every machine of any real 
 value," and to-day state : " The reaper of the present day does not 
 disclose any principles contained in the early efforts of C. H. McCor- 
 mick; but that cannot be said of Hussey." In 1861, when the fight was 
 on and reaper men knew about the matter, Whiteley's interpretation 
 of the situation was that Hussey's claims " were not novel " and Mc- 
 Cormick's " covered every machine of any real value." Mr. Whiteley 
 of 1897 better square himself with Mr. Whiteley of 1861 before his 
 opinions will be entitled' to any weight on historical matters. Let it be 
 remembered, however, that Mr. Whiteley had sufficient ability in me- 
 
25 
 
 chanical lines not to adopt any such crazy plan of a cutting apparatus 
 as that of Hussey's. E. N. Dickerson, who was McCormick's counsel 
 in the McCormick-Manny case, in referring to the Hussey cutting ap- 
 paratus which had been described by George Harding, of Manny's 
 counsel, and frequently Hussey's attorney, characterized the Hussey 
 cutting apparatus as follows: 
 
 " My friend (Harding) informs us that the cutting apparatus of 
 Hussey's machine is similar to two bricks and a dull ax, by the use 
 of which you may certainly cut a stick in two if you lay it across be- 
 tween the bricks and strike it with the ax. If you have power enough 
 the stick must yield, but that is a most stupid way of cutting grain, and 
 McCormick was never guilty of anything half so stupid." 
 
 Again referring to the drawing (Fig. 5) of Hussey's cutting ap- 
 paratus, notice that the angle between the knife and the guard is a very 
 acute one eighteen degrees- The bevel on both sides of the knife and 
 the length of the knife, over four inches with its slight angle, makes the 
 description of Dickerson, of " two bricks and a dull ax," very appro- 
 priate. In the cut of the Hussey machine taken from Ardrey's 
 "American Agricultural Implements" (Fig. 2), there are four horses 
 hitched to the machine and they are in a brisk trot. The only work 
 this machine did was to drive the k nife, so it is evident that some- 
 thing must have been the matter w ith his cutting apparatus. 
 
 Hussey gave his entire time for nearly thirty years trying to in- 
 troduce his reaping machine, and of course found some favorable con- 
 ditions in which it operated; still all accounts of the machine have ex- 
 pressions that show its extreme draft, and the fact that it could be 
 operated only when the grain was dry and free from grass and weeds. 
 
 In William C. Dwight's account of the machine published in the 
 Genesee Farmer, in Vol. IV, of 1834, he says: 
 
 " A change of horses is necessary, as the gait of the horses is too 
 rapid to admit of a heavy draft. The horses go at the rate of four or 
 five miles an hour, and when the growth of straw is not too heavy, 
 a fair trot of the team it not too much." 
 
 In the report of the Board of T rustees of the Maryland Agricul- 
 tural Society for 1836, they say that three mules were used upon the 
 machine and that "they moved with equal facility in a walk or in a 
 trot." 
 
 In the report of the Committee of the Philadelphia Agricultural 
 
26 
 
 Society, 1839, it was stated, "A trot is sometimes necessary where the 
 grain is much lodged, or a strong wind drives in the direction of the 
 machine." 
 
 Hussey, writing from Baltimore on November 15, 1839, states: 
 
 " With the speed of an ordinary brisk walk the cutting is sure. 
 . . So sure is the cutting at all times that the sharp edge is by no- 
 means necessary, for no sharpening is required from beginning to end 
 of harvest, and no difference in the excellency of its work can be dis- 
 covered between sharp and dull cutters. . . . The machine will 
 also do excellent work in almost any kind of grain in a quick trot, but 
 such a speed should be avoided except when absolutely necessary." 
 
 In 1840 Hussey sent several reaping machines to parties near 
 Richmond, but they did not give satisfaction, and Edward Ruffin, the 
 famous agriculturist of Virginia, editor of the Farmers' Register, de- 
 clined to recommend the machine, because " he had not seen a trial 
 of it, and those who have tried it differ as to its merits and economy.* 
 
 This statement of Mr. Ruffin called forth a letter from Queen 
 Anne County, Maryland, under date of February 18, 1841, and one 
 from Mr. Hussey himself, under date of April 4. The one from Queen 
 Anne County declares that: 
 
 " I have not as yet, from my own experience, been able to decide 
 on the value of the reaper. ... It broke early in the harvest. . . . 
 The knives could not be set to cut higher than nine inches. It cut 
 more straw than was useful, and also grass among the wheat, this im- 
 posed unnecessary labor on the horses and a heavy strain on the ma- 
 chine." 
 
 Hussey, discussing the cause of the failure in Virginia, states, in his 
 letter to the Farmers' Register: 
 
 " It is admitted that it may not do everything that is expected of 
 it, when proper management is not used; for instance, when the wheat 
 is rank and mixed with grass, the cutter should be raised to the high- 
 est point." 
 
 Hussey then made a proposition to Ruffin to send two machines 
 to Virginia, and this proposition was accepted, and the machines were 
 sent to the estates of Wm. B. Harrison, Esq., Upper Brandon, and R. 
 B. Bolden, Sandy Point, James River, both of whom made reports to 
 the Farmers' Register. Harrison declined to recommend the machine 
 as time saving, and went on to say, among other things : 
 
 " The reaper cannot be started as long as there is any dew on the 
 
2? 
 
 wheat in the morning, nor can it op erate after much has fallen in the 
 evening. ... It would add greatly to the value of this machine 
 if the ingenious inventor, Mr. Hussey, can devise some way to make 
 them cut damp straw, so they could be kept at work all day." 
 
 Bolden declared that: 
 
 '"' With three mules and a man to drive and one on the machine 
 to rake the wheat from the platform upon which, as it is cut, it falls, 
 we estimated that rather more than one acre per hour was reaped. The 
 machine does not cut well early in the morning, when the wheat is 
 moist." 
 
 In 1842, at a meeting of the Prince George County (Va.) Agri- 
 cultural Society, July 4, a report was submitted by the Committee to 
 the effect that: 
 
 " Hussey's wheat reaping machine has been introduced on one 
 of the Brandon estates, but owing principally to its inability to work 
 when the wheat is damp from dew, no material advantage has yet re- 
 sulted from it." 
 
 In March of 1843 Hussey, who had read the glowing accounts of 
 the work of McCormick's machines in Virginia, wrote to the editor 
 of the Southern Planter as follows : 
 
 " I saw in your last Planter an account of another reaper in your 
 State, which is attracting some attention, it shall be my endeavor to 
 meet that machine in the field in th e next harvest. I think it but jus- 
 tice to give this public notice, that parties concerned may not be 
 taken unawares, but have the opportunity to prepare themselves for 
 such a contest." 
 
 McCormick accepted this challenge through the columns of the 
 Richmond Enquirer, and suggested that Hussey meet him on the 
 farm of Mr. Ambrose Hutchinson, where a machine that he had sold 
 to the President of the Virginia State Agricultural Society, Rev. J. 
 H. Turner, would be in operation. In accepting Hussey's challenge, 
 he said: 
 
 " I will willingly submit the pretensions of both machines to the 
 arbitrament of a disinterested tribunal of experienced farmers. . . . 
 I shall endeavor to show in the first place that my machine will cut 
 damp or wet wheat, and, in order to do so, propose to commence 
 cutting at sunrise. I shall further endeavor to show that it will cut 
 15 acres a day, without pushing or driving, and with a very light two- 
 horse draft." 
 
 In place of going to the farm of Mr. Hutchinson, Hussey brought 
 
28 
 
 "his reaper to the farm of a Mr. Wight, on the James River, on t the 
 day on which McCormick was to start in operation a machine pur- 
 chased of him by Wight. There is a statement of this trial in the 
 Richmond Enquirer, from which we learn that the McCormick ma- 
 chine operated well in the wet wheat after a heavy rain, while Hussey's 
 clogged and stopped, and in a length of twenty paces had to be 
 turned out of the crop twice and started in again by his four mules 
 at a hard trot, after which he admitted that his machine would not 
 cut wet or damp grain. 
 
 Hussey, not being satisfied, on the 3Oth of June took his 
 reaper to Hutchinson's. McCormick was there with his machine, and 
 began cutting at 5:15 a. m., as promised. Hussey, however, did not 
 get to the field until after 10 o'clock. A committee was appointed by 
 the spectators, and the machines tried together in different locations. 
 The decision was rendered in favor of the McCormick machine be- 
 cause "it cut damp wheat, was lighter draft, had side delivery, scat- 
 tering less grain, and better quality of cut. 77 Hussey, however, when 
 defeated, wanted to try again, and the machines met on the farm of a 
 Mr. Roane. At this trial the McCormick machine cut fourteen acres 
 in one day, notwithstanding a loss of some time in the morning and 
 again after dinner. 
 
 This was the last seen of Mr. Hussey in Virginia. He was fairly 
 beaten, but never ceased to bewail his failure. At the end of the year 
 1844 he wrote the editor of The Cultivator: 
 
 " It is now 10 years since my invention of the reaper. I have been 
 constantly engaged since that time in its improvement. ... It 
 cannot appear strange if some of these changes may have been for the 
 worse and thereby endangered its good name. . . . My large 
 machine requires four horses." 
 
 It has been stated that Hussey was not "strong enough" to push 
 his machine. A careful examination of his various attempts to intro- 
 duce his machines between the years 1834 and 1845 W *U show that his 
 failure was not due to lack of ability, but of cutting apparatus. From 
 the sworn testimony of his own foreman, Lovegrove, in the Hussey 
 extension case of 1861, it appears that from 1840 to 1845 ne made 
 but from twelve to forty machines annually, and from his own state- 
 ment he sold in 1847, the ^ ast year of his patent, only ten machines. 
 Hussey's brother, who had established himself at Auburn, N. Y., made 
 
29 
 
 no headway. In 1846 the Xew York Agricultural Society, at its fair 
 held in Auburn, made an award to McCormiek over the Hussey- 
 Auburn machine, and Hussey himself afterwards repudiated the 
 Auburn machine. 
 
 Before this time McCormick's machine was a pronounced success. 
 Hussey's, as has been shown, was a failure. The question, therefore, 
 as to who invented the first practical reaper wouM seem to be conclu- 
 sively settled in favor of McCormick. 
 
 Inasmuch as some have assumed that Hussey's patent of 1847 orl 
 the open back guard was the invention which made reaping machines 
 practical, it is appropriate to show that for several years after taking 
 out that patent he had no conception of a successful cutting apparatus. 
 
 Fig. 6 shows this cutter of 1847. His patent for this improvement^ 
 No. 5,227, dated August 7, 1847, says: 
 
 " In my original invention (patent of 1833) the plates are ground! 
 with a bevel on both sides of the edge. The purpose of this is that 
 by means of the shoulder of the bevel, the sharp edge is prevented 
 from coming into immediate contact with the iron in passing the guard. 
 This bevel is not so necessary for the fork of the blades, as near their 
 points ; hence, in this improvement about one inch of edge at the fork 
 is flush, on the under side, leaving the bevel on the upper side. The 
 design of this is that the grass,, etc., which is forced in between the 
 blades and the lower part of the guard, shall be cut up and worked out 
 by the flush edge coming close to the iron at the fork." 
 
 In this improvement he had two points, which he claimed in the 
 following claims: 
 
 (a) "The opening: above the blades at A, in combination, with, 
 vibrating blades." 
 
30 
 
 fb) "The particular application of the flush edge at the fork of the 
 blades for the purpose described." 
 
 He still kept his blade's almost four and one-half inches long, and, 
 beveled as they were on both sides to within one inch of their rear, 
 they acted in a manner similar to the " cutting of a stick between two 
 bricks." They still drew much dead grass, weeds and trash into the 
 slots of the guard, part of which worked out at the rear, because of the 
 opening on the top part of the guard. That this apparatus was not a 
 success is very plain from the reports that we have of the operation of 
 the machine. 
 
 In 1851, at the World's Fair in London, the official trials were held 
 on the farm of Mr. Mechi, in Essex. The official report of Mr. John- 
 son, the American Commissioner, says : 
 
 " The wheat upon which the trial was to be made was quite green 
 and remarkably heavy, and everything as unfavorable as could well be. 
 . . . The first machine tried was Hussey's, which did not succeed 
 at all, as it clogged very soon and passed over the grain without cut- 
 ting it. After this had been tried two or three times and failed, it was 
 proposed by one of the jury that no further trial be made, but it was 
 insisted that the other American reaper (McCormick's) should be tried. 
 . . . The machine was started. After it had passed its length the 
 clean path made by the reaper showed that the work was done, and the 
 reaper was successful." 
 
 Mr. Hussey, however, was not satisfied, and another trial was 
 obtained. The following is from the report of Mr. Pusey, M. P., who 
 was one of the judges: 
 
 " In the first trial at Tip Tree Hall Mr. McCormick's reaper worked 
 well, the other (Hussey's) did not go at all. As the corn, however, was 
 then green, it was thought right to make further trial. . . . The 
 object of our second trial was to decide whether either, or both, was 
 sufficiently good to receive our Council Medal. Mr. McCormick's 
 worked in this trial, as it has since worked at Cirencester College and 
 elsewhere, commanding the admiration of practical farmers, and there- 
 fore received the Council Medal. Mr. Hussey's sometimes became 
 clogged, as in the former trial at Tip Tree, and therefore could not 
 possibly obtain that distinction." 
 
 The operation of the Hussey machine at Paris in 1855 has been 
 clearly shown by the quotation heretofore given to have been almost a 
 failure, for 
 
 " The poor horses, although young and powerful, driven at great 
 
speed, were completely exhausted. This machine works heavily; it 
 requires too much power to drive its ponderous knife." 
 
 In a paper read before the British Society for the Advancement of 
 Art and Science, in 1853, Alfred Crosskill, the first manufacturer in 
 England of the Hussey and Bell type of machines, makes as fair a 
 statement for Hussey's cutting apparatus as can be made: 
 
 " The shape of the knives and guards varies in both machines. 
 Mr. McCormick's cutters form an angle with the guard of 60 to 70 
 degrees and have their edges serrated. . . . The cutters used by 
 Hussey make an angle of 10 or 20 degrees with the guard, and are 
 much more acute than those used by his rival. They are plain edged, 
 and their action is to chop the corn (grain) between them and the 
 guard through which they pass. His form of a knife bends the grasses 
 through the guards and in time chokes up the knives." 
 
 Again the writer stated : 
 
 " In Hussey's they form a very acute angle with the guards, which 
 are plain edged, and therefore chop off the straws by means of very 
 rapid motion through the fingers." 
 
 Mr. Jacob Wilson, in his celebrated prize essay before the Royal 
 Agricultural Society, referred to the two machines as follows: 
 
 '* In Mr. McCormick's machine the knife had a separate edge, the 
 numerous blades being riveted on to the bar in the form of an obtuse 
 angle, consequently its action is similar to that of a saw. It was more 
 desirable, more easily worked, and less liable to choke than Hussey's. 
 In Hussey's the knife formed a very acute angle, which was smooth 
 edged, and chopped the straw by a rapid motion through and against 
 the fingers, but unless driven at a considerable speed was liable to 
 choke. A friend, who worked one of these machines in America for 
 several years, informs me that it was no uncommon practice to have 
 the horses going at a sharp trot during the whole day to prevent the 
 choking of course having relays of men and horses. . . . The 
 obtuse angle cutter (McCormick's shear draw cut) is simple, effective, 
 durable, seldom requires sharpening, and consumes less power than 
 any other form." 
 
 The Royal Agricultural College Farm, in 1852, held a trial between 
 Hussey's and McCormick's reapers lasting nine days. A committee 
 was appointed and the trial was one of the most severe ever held. The 
 report of the judges states : 
 
 " McCormick's machine appeared to be free from clogging. The 
 place at which it was necessary for the horses to walk in order to 
 secure the proper working of the machines appeared to us a most 
 
32 
 
 material feature in their claims. The horses which drew Hussey's ma- 
 chine was driven by a man riding on the near horse, and were kept at 
 a fast walk, which we estimated at nearly four miles per hour certain- 
 ly at a speed far exceeding the ordinary walk of regular cart horses, 
 and this speed appeared necessary to insure efficient working; a re- 
 quirement which must be very distressing to heavy horses. McCor- 
 mick's, on the contrary, was driven by a man seated on a machine at 
 the ordinary pace of cart horses (say, 2% miles per hour), a rate at 
 which a pair of horses might work for a whole day as at the plow, and 
 with as little distress." 
 
 Another great trial was held in 1852, at Driffield, England, and the 
 committee reported: 
 
 " Your committee are further of opinion, that from the violent 
 reverbatory motion imparted to every part of Hussey's machine, dura- 
 bility is not to be expected, and th at the form of the serrated cutters 
 in McCormick's machine is far preferable to the deeply indented, 
 smooth edged cutters in Hussey's, and that they will not nearly so often 
 need renewing." 
 
 In the account of the annual exhibition of the Royal Agricultural 
 Society in 1853, published in the Farmers' Magazine, it is stated: 
 
 " Mr. Hussey, the American, also made some excellent work with 
 his improved machine, which is completely altered (by its English 
 maker) since the great exhibition- . . . The speed of the cutting 
 knives is increased so that the horses may go one-fourth slower. The 
 knife used in America, where the climate is very dry, and the crops light, 
 was formed to cut an angle of 20 degrees. It is now made to cut at an 
 angle of 45 degrees, and with sickled edges to suit the moist condition 
 of the heavier crops and humid climate of Great Britain. This form 
 of knife or cutter is not only better adapted for greenish crops in wet 
 or dry weather, but it greatly reduces the liability to clog." 
 
 In the Mechanics' Magazine of May 22, 1858, there is a long dis- 
 cussion on reaping machines. In speaking of Hussey the article states: 
 
 " The knife of the McCormick consists of a series of very short,, 
 obtuse, angular blades, so as to form a cutting edge, which does not 
 depart very considerably from a straight line. The whole of the cutting 
 edges are finely serrated after the m anner of the sickle edge. The cut 
 is what is known as a 'draw cut' in opposition to the chopping action 
 of the Hussey knife. . . . In cutting, MlcCormick's reaper has this 
 great advantage, that the knife would never clog in damp, foul crops, 
 while the Hussey machines would only cut when the crop was dry." 
 
 The same article says of the Bell machine : 
 
 *' This machine had lain dormant for many years. That it was 
 
33 
 
 not successful will be seen from the fact that Crosskill subsequently 
 discarded both the shears and the endless web, substituting McCor- 
 mick's knife for the shears." 
 
 These Englishmen, disinterested, as between McCormick and Hus- 
 sey, were good critics of these two types of cutting apparatus. Their 
 unanimous opinion was that Hussey's cutting apparatus was not a suc- 
 cess until it was changed so that the knife was beveled only on the 
 upper edge, made to fit closely to the guard, and shortened so as to 
 increase the angle. These changes were copied by the makers of 
 Hussey's machines from McCormick, who from the first had a knife 
 that was sharp only on one edge ; that had serrations and was so posi- 
 tioned that the angle between the knife and the guard was much great- 
 er than in Hussey's, thus giving a " draw cut" instead of a chopping 
 cut. 
 
 But Hussey himself did not make these necessary changes. His 
 idea of a chopping cut, with a knife beveled on both edges, was adhered 
 to by him in his own manufactures until the last, and that it is a failure 
 was told by the fact that in 1858 his manufacturing establishment made 
 but ten machines. Gideon A. Allen, one of the firm of Minturn & 
 Allen, of Urbana, O., testified in the Hussey extension case on the $th 
 of February, 1861, as follows: 
 
 " Q. What kind of harvesting machines do you make? 
 
 " A. Hussey machines. 
 
 " Q. Please say what style of knives you used; did you make any 
 changes; if so, what, and why did you make them? 
 
 " A. The first years we made the knife like M 2 (a long blade, sim- 
 ilar to Fig. 6). After that we commenced cutting them shorter and 
 making them wider; the third year pretty much like M 3 as to size and 
 shape, probably ground a very little way from the point on the under 
 side; after that we kept making them a little shorter and a little wider 
 and quit grinding on the under side, leaving the under side flush all 
 the way. The reason why we ground them only on top was that by 
 leaving the blade lay flat on the guards it would prevent the grass 
 working underneath the blades, which we found it did do in a great 
 measure. There was another advantage, it brought the cutting edge 
 nearer to the guards, and was less liable to leave the grass uncut." 
 
 Minturn, his partner, testified to practically the same effect. The 
 changes made by these men on the Hussey cutting apparatus were 
 directly in line with the principles of cutting which McCormick had 
 used for more than ten years and shown to be a success. 
 
34 
 
 In 1856 P. H. Watson, a patent attorney of Washington, who had 
 been interested for the defense in the suit of McCormick vs. Manny, 
 and who* had in that connection become familiar with harvester inven- 
 tions, sought Hussey and explained to him wherein his cutting device 
 was wrong, and urged' upon him the reissue of his patent of 1847. P re ~ 
 paratory to this reissue Watson was retained and the following list of 
 lawyers: Stanton, the greatest patent lawyer of his day; Harding, then a 
 young man, but since famous; Gifford, Keller, Dodge, McLean, Law, 
 Hewitt and Scott. The total fees paid these men in four years was 
 $33,393.87, an exorbitant sum for that early day. These figures and 
 names are taken from the statement filed by Hussey when obtaining 
 the extension of his patent in 1861. The patent of 1847 was then 
 reissued. The original patent stated in the first claim that the guards 
 were to be " open on top and to be used in combination with a knife" 
 Watson, from, his experience with the McCormick machine, knew that 
 McCormick had used a knife in combination with guard fingers that 
 were open beloiv, and so this claim was reissued to cover *' a scalloped 
 knife in combination with open guard fingers." Nothing was said 
 about the beveling of the knife upon both edges ; and for the first time 
 Hussey (?) made the invention for which he has been given so much 
 credit. To the average man, however, this invention will appear due 
 to the $33,000 that he paid to that long array of famous lawyers. This 
 reissue by Hussey of his patents ; the employment of the leading patent 
 lawyers of America, paying them immense fees, and the manipulation 
 of his patent through the Patent Office, is ample evidence of Hussey's 
 shrewdness and business ability. At this time his manufacture of 
 machines had decreased to a very few (nineteen in 1857), and he seemed 
 to realize that as a manufacturer he was out of the market, and that 
 his sole opportunity lay in reissuing his patents to cover a cutting 
 device which should contain far more of McCormick's idea than of his 
 own. 
 
 If Mr. Hussey's conception in 1846 had been clear on even this 
 feature, he would have been entitled to the credit for an improvement of 
 value ; but he had no conception of the essential requisite of a " draw 
 cut." In securing his reissued patent he completely changed it from 
 the original. The knife was changed from " a knife" to " a scalloped 
 knife" and the open guard changed from " a guard open on top" to 
 
35 
 
 " an open guard." This reissue practice finally reached such outrage- 
 ous extremes that the United States Supreme Court in 1880 turned 
 down the whole subject of reissue. Such a reissue as Hussey's attor- 
 neys obtained in 1857 would to-day be absolutely void. 
 
 McCormick' s Cutting Apparatus. I quote from the description 
 of McCormick's first reaper, found in the second volume of the Me- 
 chanics' Magazine of 1833, as follows: 
 
 " There is a wheel . . . turning a small crank, and from this 
 crank the knife receives a vibratory motion. It is about 4^ feet long 
 with an edge somewhat like that of a sickle (having teeth), straight and 
 projecting into the grain at right angles to the horse. . . . The 
 grain is prevented from slipping with the edge of the knife by pieces 
 of wire projecting before it, within two or three inches of each other/' 
 
 I know of no patent, machine, experiment, newspaper report, or 
 tradition of a reciprocating knife driven by a crank with fixed fingers 
 to prevent the grain from slipping with the knife, before that of Mc- 
 Cormick, in 1831. 
 
 In the McCormick patent of June I, 1834, two ways of making the 
 knife are described. The one used was: 
 
 "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 it, for the purpose of steadying and sup- 
 porting the grain while cutting; or using a double crank and another 
 blade or vibrating bar." 
 
 The alternative plan of two vibrating blades was never used. 
 
 From the testimony, under oath, of Wm. S. and Leander J. Mc- 
 Cormick, taken fifty years ago, it appears that the fingers or guards 
 did project over the knife, and were bent back beneath its cutting edge. 
 Wm. S. McCormick, describing these fingers, stated that " the back 
 end of the iron fingers was made in the shape of a fork and that fork 
 extending back to the platform was riveted to a wooden pin, while the 
 front end projected forward over and back under the edge of the 
 reciprocating knife-" The drawing herewith (Fig. 7) shows the cutting 
 apparatus that was used in the machine down to 1839. It should be 
 borne in mind that McCormick, after using his reaper in the harvest 
 of 1832 to harvest fifty acres of grain, and in the harvests of 1833-34-35 
 to harvest considerable crops of grain, went into the business of smelt- 
 ing iron in 1835, which then promised large profits. The panic of 
 
36 
 
 1837 caused the failure of the iron business, and it was not until the 
 harvest of 1839 that he was able again to take up his reaper. In the 
 
 Staunton, Va., Spectator, of July 25,. 1839, i & an editorial giving a favor- 
 able account of a public trial in that harvest on the farm of Mr. Joseph 
 Smith, and stating that it was held in the presence of 200 persons. This 
 was followed on August 1 1 , in the same paper, by an advertisement of 
 Mr. McCormick's containing the certificate of Abram Smith and eleven 
 other gentlemen to the efficient working of the machine. 
 
 In 1840 the fingers were changed to double-closed ones. In the 
 early months of that year the Richmond' Enquirer contains a certificate 
 of five gentlemen as to the operation of the machine at different times. 
 As a result of these trials Mr. Abram Smith ordered a machine, as did 
 also Richard Sampson, the "Farmer of Virginia," but both machines 
 drew grass into the grooves on the under side of the fingers, and did 
 not operate well. These machines had the same trouble that Hussey 
 encountered when he sent his machines to Virginia four years later. 
 In 1841 Smith's machine was improved by the substitution of a new 
 sickle with reverse angle teeth cutting both ways, and it performed 
 satisfactorily in that harvest. So successful was it in 1841 that Mr. 
 McCormick advertised his machine in the spring of 1842 in the Rich- 
 mond Enquirer. For the first time in the history of harvesting ma- 
 chinery his machine was warranted to do good work ; to cut one and a 
 half acres per hour, and to save a bushel of wheat to every acre. 
 
 " The undersigned . . . determined that this machine should 
 get into use (if at all) upon its merits, and therefore upon his responsi- 
 bility." 
 
 It is owing to this conservatism in the introduction of his machine,, 
 and in obtaining his patents, that much of his trouble in after years 
 
37 
 
 arose. No one of his three great patents was taken out until long after 
 he had fully and carefully experimented and put the machine, as pat- 
 ented, into public operation and use. 
 
 Fig.8 
 
 In 1842 the cutting apparatus (Fig. 8) shown in the patent of 1845 
 was used. This year seven machines were sold and Wm. N. Peyton, 
 who had one of them, wrote to the Southern Planter in August, 1842, 
 as follows : 
 
 " It has been worked this harvest under every disadvantage 
 . . . in consequence of the unprecedented weather we have had. 
 . . . The reaper has cut all descriptions of wheat green, ripe, 
 rusted as badly as wheat could have it, lying and standing. . . . 
 No weather has prevented the machine from working except when the 
 ground was so soft as to the mire the wheels." 
 
 General Corbin Braxton also furnished to the Farmers' Register 
 an account of the operation of his machine : 
 
 " As soon as the first machine was put together we started it on a 
 wet, damp day, in very heavy wheat not yet ripe . . . two mules 
 were hitched, and to my astonishment it operated without stoppage or 
 difficulty." 
 
 In 1843 Mr. McCormick sold twenty-nine reapers, and he had 
 certificates like the above from twenty-seven of them. In 1844 fifty 
 were sold and gave the best of satisfaction, and from the work of these 
 machines in 1844 Mr. McCormick licensed five builders of his reaper 
 at a license fee of $20 per machine. Brown, in Cincinnati, was to build 
 100, Seymour & Morgan, at Brockport, N. Y., in the eastern territory, 
 and Fitch, Backus & Co., of the same place, for the western territory, 
 were licensed. Five counties were sold in Virginia, and the shops on 
 the home farm were to continue building under license. 
 
38 
 
 It was with much difficulty that Mr. McCormick moved from place 
 to place over the country, making most of the journeys on horseback. 
 He was without means, and dependent, largely, upon the assistance 
 of others; but his reaper was successful, and the thousands of them 
 that he sold, with the cutting apparatus of 1842, shows conclusively 
 that his was a practical machine years before Hussey's cutting appara- 
 tus had been made a success. Attention is called to the fact that Mc- 
 Cormick had a clear idea, in 1842, of cutting by a reciprocating blade 
 that slid upon a curved support to hold the blade closely against a 
 finger, thus giving a shear cut by a draw motion. Hussey for years, in 
 fact, never in the machines he made himself, had a " draw cut." It 
 is the " shear draw cut" that makes the modern cutting apparatus suc- 
 
 cessful. The drawing herewith (Fig. 9) shows in full lines Hussey's 
 long-pointed knife, which formed an angle of but 18 degrees between 
 its edge and the guard. Even in the mowing machine of to-day the 
 angle is 35 degrees almost twice as great and in the harvester it is 
 55 degrees three times as great. The line made in dots shows the 
 mower section and that in dashes the harvester section that is in use at 
 the present time. The most careful work in the making of harvesting 
 machinery is the fitting of the knives so they will reciprocate through 
 
39 
 
 the guards and, being beveled on but one side, will form with the guard 
 a perfect " shear cut.'' Hussey's knife being beveled on both edges, 
 long and straight, had not a shear cut because its edge did not strike 
 the edge of the guard, nor had it a draw cut because of its deep pitch. 
 It was therefore necessary to propel it with great speed to make it 
 operate at all, with its chopping cut. 
 
 In 1857 McCormick answered Hussey's suit by saying that he had 
 used the vibrating knife, moving through fingers open on their lower 
 sides, in 1831 and on to 1839. Judge McLean, in his decision, stated 
 that Hussey's reissued patent was for a scalloped blade moving through 
 open fingers; that McCormick's earlier machine had a straight blade 
 with a serrated edge in open fingers, and therefore did not anticipate 
 Hussey's invention. 
 
 In the attacks made upon McCormick's position as inventor of the 
 reaper the writers go through all the early machines, none of which 
 harvested grain ; they pick out a side draft from one ; a small cylinder, 
 which they call a reel, from another; a long guard, which they term a 
 divider, from another; a platform from a newspaper account of a ma- 
 chine that was never built; a reciprocating knife that would not recip- 
 rocate and then say, " McCormick invented nothing every device 
 of his can be found in earlier patents." When, however, they measure 
 Hussey they do not fise the same yardstick with which they measure 
 McCormick's invention. If they did they would find Hussey's open 
 back-guard in McCormick's early machine and the scalloped recipro- 
 cating knife in Manning's patent of 1831. Thus by the same ride with 
 which they measured McCormick, Hussey invented nothing. Judge 
 McLean said, however, that it was well settled law that " Inventors of 
 a combination are as much entitled to suppress every other combina- 
 tion of the same ingredients as any other class of inventors." 
 Summarizing on the cutting apparatus : 
 
 (a) McCormick was first (in 1831) to use a reciprocating knife 
 driven by a crank and pitman with fixed fingers to prevent the grain 
 from moving with the knife. 
 
 (b) Hussey made, in 1833, a reciprocating blade worked by a 
 crank, the blade fitted with knives three inches wide and four and one- 
 half inches long, beveled on both sides, with fingers having slots into 
 which the knives drew trash and damp straw because of the ''chopping 
 cut," thus making the plan a failure. 
 
40 
 
 (c) In 1842 McCormick made the improvement on his cutting- 
 apparatus, shown in his patent of 1845, serrating the blade first one 
 way and then in the opposite direction; made large curved open sup- 
 ports for the blade to reciprocate in and spear-shaped fingers to hold 
 the straw to the blade, thus making a " draw shear cut" that would not 
 clog in damp grain. He thus obtained a successful cutting apparatus 
 that enabled him to sell thousands of reapers. 
 
 (d) Hussey in 1846, first built and sold his improved cutting appa- 
 ratus, shown in his patent of 1847, opening the rear of the upper mem- 
 ber of the guard and keeping about one inch of the rear part of the 
 knife flush with the bottom. It was somewhat better than his original 
 plan, but still was not a success, as it lacked the " draw shear cut." 
 
 (e) In 1852 McCormick returned to his open finger and slightly 
 scalloped his blade, thus making his " draw shear cut" principle more 
 effective. Some builders of cutting apparatus, similar to Hussey's, 
 shortened the blades and ceased beveling them on the under side, thus 
 coming more closely to McCormick's " draw shear cut" and making 
 the Hussey apparatus more effective- 
 
 (f) Hussey's attorneys, seeing that his reaper was a failure (the 
 sale shortly dropping to ten a year), got the leading patent attorneys 
 of the country to reissue his patents so as to cover a scalloped blade 
 working in open fingers, and then for the first time, twenty-five years 
 after the invention of the reaper by McCormick, did he have an im- 
 provement of value in harvesters. Upon this one minor feature (the 
 work of attorneys) rests Obed Hussey's only shadow of a claim to the 
 invention of the first successful reaper. 
 
 III. -TREATMENT ACCORDED MCCORMICK AND HUSSEY BT THE GOVERN- 
 MENT. 
 
 This subject has little, if any, bearing on the question of "who in- 
 vented the reaper." The fact, however, that the Board of Commission- 
 ers for the Extension of Patents refused in 1848 to extend McCormick's 
 patent of 1834 is mentioned in the Protest as a point against the nov- 
 elty of McCormick's first machine. 
 
 The extension of Hussey's patent was also refused by the same 
 Board, but mention of that fact was carefully omitted in the Protest. 
 Hussey also applied to Congress for an extension and was refused, 
 
41 
 
 although he kept his application pending eight years ; and this also the 
 Protest forgot to mention. McCormick applied to Congress for an 
 extension of his patent of 1834, but was not successful. The two 
 inventors thus stand, in regard to the extension of their first patents, 
 in identically the same position. 
 
 Hussey asked the Patent Office for an extension of his patent in 
 the fall of 1847, an d was refused on a technicality. His patent then 
 expired on the 3ist day of December, 1847. McCormick, on the iQth 
 day of January, 1848, asked the Committee on Patents for an extension 
 of his patent, which would expire on the 2ist day of June, 1848. The 
 extension was refused on technical grounds. The following letter of 
 Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents, says: 
 
 " \\ithin ten or twelve days of the expiration of his patent, Hussey 
 applied to me, as Commissioner of Patents, for an extension. I in- 
 formed him that, inasmuch as the Act of Congress, prescribing the 
 mode in which patents should be extended, required a reasonable 
 notice to be given to the public, . . . and as there was not time to 
 give the required notice in his case I advised Mr- Hussey ... to 
 petition Congress for an extension, which body had the power to 
 grant it. 
 
 " During the same winter, and after Mr. Hussey had applied to 
 me for an extension of his patent, Mr. McCormick made application 
 in due form and in season for the extension of his patent. Due notice 
 was given, and on the day appointed for a hearing, Mr. Hussey ap- 
 peared and contested the extension of Mr. McCormick's patent. And 
 on examination of the records of the Patent Office and a comparison 
 of the two patents, it appeared they both covered one or more fea- 
 tures substantially identical in principle, but not the same precise com- 
 binations; and inasmuch as Mr. Hussey's patent bore date before Mr. 
 McCormick's, the Board decided that he was prima facie the in- 
 ventor of the feature, or rather claim, which conflicted. But Mr- Mc- 
 Cormick contended that he invented the part of the machine embraced 
 in both patents one or two years before Hussey obtained his patent, 
 and was, in fact, the first and original inventor; and he prayed for a 
 continuance of the hearing until he could take testimony with due no- 
 tice to Mr. Hussey. He complied with the orders of the Board; but on 
 an examination of the testimony on the next day of hearing, it was 
 found to have been informally taken, and therefore ruled out." 
 
 The minutes of the McCormick case before the Board of Exten- 
 sion are given: 
 
 " March 23, 1848, the Board met pursuant to adjournment, and 
 " Ordered, That the further hearing of this application be post- 
 poned to Wednesday, the 29th of March, and that the said McCormick 
 
42 
 
 be directed to furnish satisfactory testimony that the invention of his 
 machine was prior to the invention of a similar machine by Obed Hus- 
 sey, and that he be directed to give due notice to the said Hussey of 
 the time and place of taking of said testimony. 
 
 " March 29, 1848. The Board met agreeably to adjournment. 
 Present: Jas. Buchanan, Edmund Burke and R. H. Gillett, and having 
 examined the evidence adduced in the case, decided that said patent 
 ought not to be extended. 
 
 " (Signed) JAMES BUCHANAN, Secretary of State. 
 
 " EDMUND BURKE, Commissioner of Patents. 
 
 " R. H. GILLETT, Solicitor of the Treasury." 
 
 As was common in extension cases, the Commissioner of Patents 
 had previously asked the Examiner in the Patent Office to report on 
 McCormick's patent, and this report, dated January 22, 1848, stated 
 that: 
 
 " 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 arrangement and operation of the cutting apparatus, are 
 found in the reaping machine of Obed Hussey, patented 3ist of De- 
 cember, 1833. The revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its 
 operation is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, pat- 
 ented 2d November, 1825. Respectfully submitted, 
 
 "CHARLES G. PAGE, Examiner." 
 
 Page, the Examiner, who knew little about reaping machines, 
 called McCormick's reel a " revolving rack." Ten Eyck, in 1825, took 
 a patent on a reaper which proved a complete failure. It had revolv- 
 ing knives similar to those of lawn mowers. Page, noticing that the 
 pictures resembled each other, mistook the drawing of this cutting ap- 
 paratus for a reel, and cited it as an anticipation. He made a mistake, 
 which merely emphasized his ignorance and lack of knowledge on the 
 subject This error of Page's alone was fatal to McCormick's applica- 
 tion, for at that early day Buchanan and Gillett accepted Page's opin- 
 ion that the gathering-reel and the cutting-cylinder were identical con- 
 structions having the same functions. Burke, the Commissioner of 
 Patents, recognized the distinction, and was in favor of the extension. 
 He signed the decision only because it was the custom for all to unite 
 in the ruling of the majority. Viewing this matter in the light of fifty- 
 years' experience, it is easy to see how fatal Page's blunder was to the 
 interests of McCormick's extension. The only other point in Page's 
 report was the cutting apparatus of Hussey. Having invented his 
 
43 
 
 reaper two years before Hussey, McCormick proceeded to obtain ex 
 parte affidavits setting forth the invention and successful operation of 
 his reaper in 1831. Hussey, however, wrote the following letter on 
 February 21, 1848, to the Board of Extension: 
 
 " I wish hereby to interpose my objections to the extension of 
 Cyrus H- McCormick's patent for his reaping machine by your honor- 
 able Board. 
 
 " My objections are these: 
 
 " (i) The machine has not proved a useful invention to the public. 
 
 " (2) Mr. McCormick has been rewarded by sales of patent rights 
 and by the extensive sales of his machine, before the real merits of the 
 machine were fully known. 
 
 " (3) It will be an injury to myself.'' 
 
 He then produced several letters in relation to the work of cer- 
 tain of the hundreds of reapers that McCormick's licensees had sold, 
 and finally got back to the 1843 trial that was ne ^ between his and 
 McCormick's machine in Virginia, in which he was defeated, as shown 
 by the unanimous report of the judges. He says: 
 
 " Our machines came before the public simultaneously and got 
 credit in widely different locations. They were first operated together 
 in Richmond, Ya,, in 1843. ^ n unfair trial was brought about in the 
 same field, where a preference was given to McCormick's machine, 
 which was accidental and should not have been given.'' 
 
 It will be remembered, from the quotations already given, that 
 Hussey had challenged McCormick for this trial several months beiore 
 the harvest of 1843. The letter further says: 
 
 " By the false position in which Mr. McCormick's machine was 
 then placed he made extensive sales of his patent rights, which filled 
 the country with machines which are now going out of use. I need 
 not say that this state of things has had a disastrous effect on my in- 
 terests, as well as on the interests of the farmers of the country, which 
 has been fully developed since that time, and it is believed that a fur- 
 ther extension of McCormick's patent will serve to perpetuate in some 
 degree the evil effects on farmers, while it may operate to retard the 
 just reward which the subscriber claims for having produced the best 
 reaping machine which was ever offered to the world, which reward 
 he feels himself kept out of, in a great measure, by the false position 
 his machine was placed in by the award of the public committee, which 
 has since been fully acknowledged to be wrong. 
 
 " (Signed) OBED HUSSEY." 
 
 What a mixture of inconsistency and selfishness this letter shows T 
 McCormick had " filled the countrv with machines." How shallow, 
 
4:4: 
 
 therefore, his first objection, that it had " not proved a useful inven- 
 tion to the public." Would farmers have made " extensive " purchases 
 of reapers in the 40*5, " before they knew the real merits of the ma- 
 chines "? 
 
 Fifteen hundred McCormick machines were made that year, near- 
 ly as many machines as Hussey built and sold during the thirty years 
 of his business career. Hussey sold and was paid for only ten ma- 
 chines that year; yet he writes to the Extension Board that McCor- 
 mick's machines " are going out of use." Hussey followed this letter 
 t>y another one, two days later, dated Washington, February 23, 1848. 
 The letter is as follows: 
 
 " I learned very recently that one of the strongest points upon 
 which Mr. McCormick rests his claim for the extension of his patent 
 is that he is ostensibly the inventor of the reaping machine. Our ma- 
 chines being so different it never occurred to me that such an opinion 
 could be entertained by any one, and up to the 21 st inst., the day 
 on which I became aware of that first, I had made no preparation to 
 combat it. I understand also that the Examiner in the Patent Office 
 has given it as his opinion that our machines are similar- It is natural 
 .for me to infer that this opinion was obtained to aid your Honorable 
 Board in deciding justly for all parties. The supposition that such evi- 
 dence may be concluded sufficient in the present case, in the absence 
 of more positive evidence, has given me no little concern. Our ma- 
 chines are different in principle, so far as regards these points which 
 either of us can justly claim to be the inventor of. I will admit that 
 our machines in some respects are similar, but those points of similar- 
 ity are public property and not the invention of either of us. 
 I trust that before your Honorable Board shall decide in McCormick's 
 favor, on the ground that our machines are similar, you will permit 
 me to lay before you evidence to substantiate what I have here as- 
 serted. ... I have made little money by my patent. One county 
 is the extent of territory which I have sold. My desire has been to 
 confine the manufacture, as much as possible, within my own control, 
 until I could give to the world a good reaping machine, which I have 
 done just at the expiration of my patent. With great respect. 
 
 "(Signed) OBED HUSSEY." 
 
 This letter could never have -been written if Mr- Hussey, in 1848, 
 "had known himself to be the inventor of the reaper. He says that the 
 knowledge that the Examiner in the Patent Office had " given it as 
 his opinion that our machines are similar has given me no little con- 
 cern." Of course it did when he knew full well that McCormick's ma- 
 chine was built two years before his and any extension of McCor- 
 
45 
 
 mick ? s patent would cover his use of a knife reciprocating through 
 fixed fingers driven by a crank. In the spring of 1834 McCormick 
 gave Hussey public notice, by a letter in the Mechanics' Magazine, that 
 his machine had been invented and used in 1831, and that he claimed 
 " the principle of cutting by a toothed instrument receiving motion 
 from a crank in combination with iron fingers." The Examiner's 
 statement that the machines were similar in the cutting apparatus left 
 Hussey no escape unless he could show that " our machines are dif- 
 ferent in principle.^ Hussey's egotism is apparent by his statement 
 that " McCormick's machine fails . . . while mine is taking its 
 place." Nothing short of an hallucination could assume that his ten 
 machines were "taking" the place" of McCormick's 1,500. The ad- 
 mission in the letter that not until 1848 could he " give to the world a 
 good reaping, machine" would excite sympathy did it not tell so con- 
 clusively against the claim of the perfection of his machine before that 
 date. 
 
 From the order of the Extension Board it will be seen that on 
 March 23, 1848, the Board directed Mr. McCormick to furnish " satis- 
 factory testimony," and gave him until Wednesday,, the 2Qth of March, 
 six days, in which to obtain it. His testimony, already filed, was in the 
 form of affidavits, and the order directed " that due notice be given to 
 the said Hussey of the time and place of taking said depositions." Mc- 
 Cormick was thus allowed in the month of March, when the roads 
 were almost impassable, six days in which to go from Washington to 
 Steele's Tavern, Rockbridge County, Va., a journey that took three 
 days even when the roads were good. The going and coming would' 
 have consumed all the time allotted by the Board. McCormick, how- 
 ever, had anticipated this dog-in-the-manger attitude of Hussey, who 
 had just failed to obtain his own extension. Some days before he had 
 notified Hussey to be present at the taking of depositions. These de- 
 positions were taken at Steele's Tavern on the i/th and i8th days of 
 March, 1848, before a Justice of the Peace, by whom they were to be 
 sealed and forwarded to Washington. The Justice, as shown by the 
 postmark of the letters, did not mail them until March 23rd, and they 
 did not reach Washington until the afternoon of March 2Qth too late 
 to be considered by the Board of Commissioners. The evidence which 
 the Board states they did -consider consisted,, therefore, in the affidavits, 
 
46 
 
 which McCormick had filed and which were to be replaced by the evi- 
 dence that did not reach Washington in time. But Senator Brown 
 of Louisiana, referring afterwards to the matter in the United States 
 Senate, stated that although these affidavits were examined they were 
 not deemed entitled to consideration because they lacked the certificate 
 of the Governor of the State, showing the appointment and authority 
 of the Justice of the Peace. All this goes to show that the Board's 
 decision was based on Page's opinion. On the first point in that 
 opinion Ten Eyck's anticipation of the reel Page made a mistake. 
 On the second point Hussey's priority as to the cutting apparatus 
 the facts conclusively prove Page was in error on this also. 
 
 This regular testimony was afterwards submitted to the Commit- 
 tee on Patents of the United States Senate, at the time McCormick 
 asked Congress to extend his patent. Senator Fessenden of Maine, 
 the chairman, one of the keenest lawyers of his day, reported to the 
 Senate for the committee: 
 
 " The testimony was taken in compliance with the order of the 
 Board, and by the proof submitted on the part of the said McCormick, 
 it appeared that he invented his machine and first practically and pub- 
 licly tested its operation in the harvest of 1831. That no proof on the 
 part of the sad Hussey appears to have been submitted to said Board 
 as to the date of his said invention, but from the exhibits referred to 
 your Committee, it appears that his machine was first constructed and 
 operated in 1833." 
 
 Could McCormick have known the tremendous odds against him, 
 he would have hesitated before starting on his trip from Steele's Tav- 
 ern to Washington, to apply for his extension, in the winter of 1847- 
 48. Single-handed and alone, he undertook to obtain justice. At that 
 time extensions were granted by a Board. It did not take many years 
 for the Secretary of State and Solicitor for the Treasury to be dropped 
 from this Board. Brown, of Cincinnati; Seymour & Morgan and Fitch, 
 Backus & Co., of Brockport; Hite, of Virginia; Rugg, of Illinois; Eas- 
 terly, of Wisconsin; Moore & Hascall, of Michigan; Hussey, of Mary- 
 land ; Minturn & Allen, of Ohio, besides the proprietors of every wagon 
 and blacksmith shop in the country that wanted to build reapers, ap- 
 pealed, through their senators and representatives, by petitions and 
 word of mouth, to prevent the extension of McCormick's patent. His 
 licensees were tired of paying $30 royalty fee for each machine, and 
 saw a way to stop paying it by defeating the extension. 
 
47 
 
 Buchanan and Gillett were politicians. Buchanan was already, as 
 Secretary of State, trimming his sails for the Presidential nomination. 
 Gillett was from New York, and so great was the political pressure 
 brought to bear upon him that he could not be impartial. Burke, the 
 Commissioner of Patents, and the one who from his position knew 
 something of the justice of McCormick's claim, favored the extension, 
 but the other two opposed it. The injustice of the refusal to grant this 
 extension was commented on in the United States Senate by such 
 lawyers as Fessenden and Seward. Other senators (also skilled law- 
 yers) who opposed the extension in the Senate, unhesitatingly declared 
 that in this refusal the Board of Extension clearly exceeded its powers- 
 
 Hussey and McCormick at once appealed to Congress for exten- 
 sions. McCormick, especially, had no chance in Congress. His pat- 
 ent was recognized as covering the essential elements of all successful 
 reaping machines, and so strong was the pressure on the part of those 
 who wished to copy it, that the Legislatures of the States of New York, 
 Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio passed resolutions instructing 
 their representatives in Congress to oppose his extension Scarcely 
 a week passed, during the pendency of McCormick's bill, without long 
 remonstrances, signed by hundreds of names. They came from all 
 the wheat-growing states. The grounds of the remonstrances were 
 that McCormick's patent would cover every reaping machine made, 
 and thus levy a tribute upon the farmers of all the grain-growing states. 
 The further ground was stated that McCormick had already made large 
 profits, and it was therefore unjust to give him such a monopoly. The 
 effect of these long remonstrances upon the politicians is clearly shown 
 by the course of Senator Douglas. He said : 
 
 " My objection is not to Mr. McCormick. He is a gentleman for 
 whom I have the highest respect. I think he has rendered a great 
 sen-ice to his country by his invention. ... I would do anything 
 that I could do properly to serve him, as he has served his country; but, 
 his patent having expired, and the right to manufacture and use the 
 machine having vested in the public, I know of no authority to divest 
 that right and put it back in him." 
 
 Hussey was also an applicant before Congress at the same time, 
 and urged his claim on the ground of his poverty and his failure to 
 receive proper compensation. Certain senators made pitiful pleas in 
 his behalf, but they were unsuccessful- The stories of his poverty were 
 
48 
 
 admissions of the failure of his machine, as is shown by this quotation 
 from a speech of Senator Jones, of Tennessee: % 
 
 " If Mr. Hussey's was such an excellent machine as is now repre- 
 sented, why, in the name of God, did he not make some money out 
 of it in fourteen years? The patent was granted in 1833 twenty-three 
 years ago, and if it was this great machine which my friend says it 
 was, is it not a little strange, that he is now so poor as to be repre- 
 sented as worthy of the consideration of the Senate, on the grounds 
 that he has made nothing out of it? " 
 
 It was shortly after his defeat in Congress that Hussey subsidized 
 the long list of patent lawyers heretofore spoken of. They took up his 
 patent of 1847 an d reissued it into a successful patent his first and 
 only success in his long experience with reapers. 
 
 In 1859 McCormick made application to the Commissioner of 
 Patents for the extension of his patent of 1845; an< ^ in 1860 he made 
 application for an extension of his patent of 1847. These extensions 
 were opposed by every builder of reapers in America. Every local 
 reaper agent throughout the country had blanks sent him which he was 
 urged to present to the farmers for their signatures, protesting against 
 the extensions. The letter of Lee & Fisher shows the combination that 
 was arrayed against McCormick. So powerful was the political pull 
 possessed by these opponents that a bill was passed in the Congress 
 of the United States extending the protestants' time for the taking of 
 testimony sixy days, thus carrying the consideration of the extension 
 to a new Commissioner of Patents, who had been instructed by his own 
 state, Indiana, to refuse the extension. James Buchanan, as one of 
 his last official acts, signed this bill. The political pressure was so 
 great upon Commissioner Holloway that he refused the extension, but 
 stated that: 
 
 " Cyrus Hall McCormick is an inventor whose fame, while he is 
 yet living, had spread around the world. His genius has done honor 
 to his own country, and has been the admiration of foreign nations, and 
 he will live in the grateful recollection of mankind as long as the reap- 
 ing machine is employed in gathering the harvest." 
 
 Summarizing on the treatment of McCormick and Hussey by the 
 Government : 
 
 (a) Both Hussey and McCormick applied to the Board for an ex- 
 tension of their patents of 1833 and 1834. Both were refused on techni- 
 calities. 
 
49 
 
 (b) McCormick was ordered to take testimony showing the pri- 
 ority of his reaper over Hussey's. This testimony was not considered, 
 as it did not reach Washington in time. Hussey, however, attended 
 this testimony and filed a brief in which he admitted the priority of 
 McCormick's machine. 
 
 (c) Hussey and McCormick applied to the Congress of the United 
 States for an extension of their patents of 1833 and 1834. Both were 
 refused. 
 
 (d) McCormick applied to the Commissioner of Patents for an 
 extension of his patents of 1845 an ^ 1847 an d Hussey applied for an 
 extension of his patent of 1847. McCormick's extensions were refused, 
 because of political manipulations and large profits that he had made 
 upon his machine, but with an encomium upon his position as inventor 
 that was worth more than any patent extension. Hussey having made 
 no profit from manufacturing his machine, was allowed an extension 
 of his patent of '47, he making oath to the fact that his machine built 
 in accordance with his patent of 1833 was a failure. 
 
 (e) Hussey admitted that the scalloped sickle was old, and the 
 double guard was old, and that his invention consisted only in the com- 
 bination of the two old elements the old scalloped sickle and the old 
 double guard. 
 
 I submit that the showing made by these two inventors while en- 
 deavoring to extend their patents clearly proves McCormick the in- 
 ventor of the reaper. 
 
 IV.-HUSSEY'S VIEW OF HIS AND MC CORMICK'S MACHINES. 
 
 The Protest contains the following quotations from the brief filed 
 by Hussey before the Board of Extension: 
 
 " I believe that I have established in this review of the evidence 
 taken in Augusta County, Va., and by the books referred to, the fol- 
 lowing points: 
 
 " (i) That C. H. McCormick is not the inventor of the arrange- 
 ment by which the horses draw the machine. 
 
 " (2) That he is not the inventor of the platform. 
 
 " (3) That he is not the inventor of the movement of the cutter by 
 means of a crank. 
 
 " (4) That he is not the inventor of the double knives, even if it 
 were satisfactorily proved that he used them prior to the date of my pat- 
 ent, which is questionable. 
 
50 
 
 16 (5) Proves the abandonment of the double knives by C. H. Me- 
 Cormick, which abandonment makes it public by the patent laws, even 
 if he were not the bona fide inventor of the same. 
 
 " In the above five points are contained all the material points in 
 which our machines are said to be similar. OBED HUSSEY." 
 
 This quotation, carefully selected and shrewdly placed, as it is 
 in the Protest, is misleading. It conveys the idea that Hussey, and 
 not McCormick, is the inventor of these essential features. 
 
 The following is quoted from the same brief: 
 
 " Several witnesses testified to the following particulars in the 
 McCormick machine, which appeared to conflict with mine: 
 
 " (i) The horses draw the machine and walk beside the grain. 
 
 " (2) The cutter is moved by connection wth a crank, 
 i he wheat falls on the platform. 
 
 " (4) The fingers were at one time double (that is, one part of the 
 finger was above and the other part below the edge of the sickle or 
 cutter). 
 
 " (5) The witness testified that C. H. McCormick abandoned the 
 double finger in 1842 or 1843. 
 
 " I will now proceed to show by the references that the four points 
 testified to are not the invention of McCormick. 
 
 " First Point. The horses draw the machine. For this I refer 
 to Rees' New Cyclopaedia, where a machine is described, invented by 
 Mr. Plunket; also to the Edinburg Cyclopedia, where a reaper is de- 
 scribed, invented by Mr. Gladstone, both of which embrace this point 
 
 " Second Point. The cutter is moved by a crank. I refer to 
 Louden's Encyclopedia of Agriculture, where the reaper is described 
 invented by Mr. Bell, describing this point. 
 
 " Third Point. I refer to the same work on the adjoining page. 
 
 " Fourth Point. Double fingers. I refer to the Edinburg Ency- 
 clopedia now in the library of the Patent Office, where a reaping ma- 
 chine is described invented by Mr. Gladstone, and improved by Mr. 
 Scott, which is illustrated in plates 478 and 479, in which revolving 
 blades pass through fingers which support the straw against the edge 
 of the blade. Fig. 5, plate 479, shows the blades, some of which are 
 represented entering the space, some leaving it, and some with their 
 points in the space. 
 
 " The witness further testified that McCormick's reaper has a 
 draw sickle blade, and a reel for the blade, which by its revolutions in 
 the heads of the wheat is designed to draw the wheat back to be cut 
 and to deposit the same on the platform when cut. I have nothing to 
 do with the sickle and reel here described. They make no part of my 
 reaper. I leave them to Mr. McCormick, while I wish to place in con- 
 trast my own cutter, which is composed of a row of blades of a lancet 
 point shape and arranged on a rod side by side. I do not claim to be 
 the inventor of such blades. I claim them in combination with, and 
 
51 
 
 vibrating through or into double fingers, a combination which I be- 
 lieve to be substantially my own invention, and entirely different from 
 McCormick's, and on which my machine entirely depends for its ef- 
 ficiency as a reaper. None of these latter points, either combined or 
 separate, are found in McCormick's reaper, he having abandoned the 
 double fingers four or five years ago." 
 
 The reason for Hussey's tactics is plain. He had been defeated in 
 his application for extension. He knew that McCormick was in a po- 
 sition where he could control the building of all reapers with a knife, 
 reciprocated by a crank with fixed fingers to prevent the grain moving 
 with the knife. Hussey's only hope, therefore, was to destroy Mc- 
 Cormick's patent by seeking to anticipate it in old publications of ma- 
 chines which had never been built, or if built had never operated. The 
 only way he could do this was to pick out a feature here and 
 there from the old pictures. He took a crank from one, a side draft 
 from another and the double fingers from another. This plan led him 
 into trouble with his own machines, as his lancet-point knives were 
 old and his double fingers were old. To meet this difficulty, he set up, 
 for himself, the claim of a combination- He did not minimize his own 
 invention. Manning's patent shows the lancet-shaped knives, and Mc- 
 Cormick had the double fingers in 1831. But he did minimize Mc- 
 Cormick's. In none of the machines to which he referred nor in any 
 machine made before McCormick's is there a reciprocating knife driven 
 by a crank working in combination with a reel ; in none is there a di- 
 vider; in none is there a reel working in combination with a divider ; 
 in none is there a reciprocating knife driven by a crank, with fixed 
 fingers to prevent the straw from moving with the knife ; in none is 
 there a platform to receive the grain, so attached to the machine that 
 a bundle can be raked from it to the side, out of the way of the machine, 
 in the next round of the field ; in none is there a machine mounted 
 upon two wheels, the major part of the weight resting upon the main 
 wheel, thus giving sufficient traction to operate the machine ; in none 
 is there a side draft on a machine, wherein the major part of the 
 weight rests upon one wheel, and that wheel located behind the team. 
 These features are McCormick's invention, and neither Bell, Scott, 
 Gladstone, Phmket, nor any of the dreamers and builders of unsuccessful 
 reapers before McCormick, contains these features. Place these essential 
 elements in the scale on one side and alloiv Hussey the only combination 
 
52 
 
 which he claims to have invented, and let the result determine the ques- 
 tion of the invention of the reaping machine. 
 
 Summarizing on Hussey's idea of his and McCormick's machines: 
 
 (a) Hussey admitted McCormick to be the first, and therefore 
 picked out of his own machine a minor feature not in McCormick's, 
 and magnified this feature. 
 
 (b) All features common to the two machines he called old and 
 minimized their value. 
 
 (c) His one feature, which the Protest has magnified into a 
 mighty reaping machine, has on investigation shrunk to a shrivelled 
 combination of two old elements, both of which have been used before 
 for the same purpose as Hussey used them. 
 
 (d) McCormicks machine, however, proves Hussey's minimizing 
 statements wrong, as it contains the essential elements of the reaping 
 machine which were original with McCormick, and without which no 
 successful reaper can be made even to this day. 
 
 It is submitted that by Hussey's own statements McCormick is 
 the inventor. 
 
 V.-IN CONCLUSION. 
 
 It is too soon to expect an unbiased judgment of McCor- 
 mick's invention. The antagonisms engendered by an energetic 
 business career of forty years are too strong; the defeats that have 
 been suffered by the rival reaper builders at every great Exposition 
 that has ever been held are still too fresh in memory ; the failure of the 
 more than 800 different concerns that have undertaken to build har- 
 vesting machines in the past fifty years and that have succumbed to 
 the competition of the MoCormick has left enemies; in all these cases 
 time is needed to modify their animosities and cause them to forget 
 their jealousies. Many years may therefore elapse before the credit 
 and honor that belongs to the successful invention of the reaper will 
 be willingly paid, by the competing reaper builders, to Cyrus H. Mc- 
 Cormick, the man who invented the first practical reaping machine. 
 Disinterested observers of the course of events, however, have placed 
 on record their opinions, and the judgment of some of these men of 
 clear and unbiased mind will carry more weight than pages written 
 by rival builders of reapers. 
 
53 
 
 " In agriculture, it (McCormick's reaper) is, in my view, as im- 
 portant a labor-saving device as the spinning jenny and power-loom 
 in manufacture- It is one of those great and valuable inventions 
 which commence a new era in the progress of improvement, and whose 
 beneficial influence is felt in all coming time." (From the report of 
 Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents, 1848.) 
 
 " The McCormick reaper is the most valuable article contributed 
 to this exhibition, and for its originality and value and its perfect work 
 in the field, it is awarded the Council Medal." (Extract from the re- 
 port of the Council of Juries, First World's Fair, London, 1851.) 
 
 " The McCormick reaper is the type after which all others are 
 made, and it is, as well, the one which worked the best in all the trials. 
 On the McCormick invention all other grain cutting machines are 
 based, and not one of the imitations equals the original.'' (Report of 
 the Juries of the Paris International Exposition, 1855, awarding to the 
 McCormick reaper the Grand Gold Medal.) 
 
 In 1863 a great International Exposition was held at Hamburg. 
 The McCormick reaper obtained the Grand Prize, and the jury stated 
 that " McCormick was the inventor of the features that gave value to 
 the reaping machine." On his way home he stopped in England, and 
 the editor of the North British Agriculturist attacked the position of 
 the Hamburg jury, urging that Bell was the inventor of the reaper. 
 Mr. McCormick answered him in several communications, through his 
 own columns, and the following quotation from the Mark Lane Ex- 
 press, the leading agricultural paper of England, under date of Octo- 
 ber 26, 1863, will show the outcome of this controversy: 
 
 " While the editor of the North British Agriculturist shows much 
 zeal for his countryman's (Rev. Patrick Bell) machine, we must say we 
 think the facts and arguments of Mr. McCormick are presented with 
 a clearness and force w r hich seem unanswerable in establishing that he 
 was the first to invent the leading features of the successful reaping 
 machine of the present day; that he continued regularly the improve- 
 ment and prosecution of the same to the perfection of the machine, 
 and that this, in the slightly varied language of the different scientific 
 juries of the various great international expositions of the world, con- 
 stitutes the invention of the reaping machine." 
 
 As an expert opinion, the following is of great value: 
 
 " While there have been many valuable improvements in detail, 
 it may be truthfully said, that to dispense with Cyrus H. McCormick's 
 invention would be to wipe every reaper out of existence." 
 
 " The original machine of Mr- McCormick embraces the follow- 
 ing features: The serrated, reciprocating blade, operating in fingers 
 or supports to the grain being cut. The platform for receiving the cut 
 
54 
 
 grain deposited thereon by the reel and from which it was raked to the 
 side in gavels ready to bind. A divider to separate the grain to be 
 cut from that left standing." (Knight's New Mechanical Dictionary, 
 by Edward H. Knight, A. M'., L.L. D., in charge of the classifications 
 and publications of the United States Patent Office.) 
 
 Professor Roberts, of Cornell University, perhaps the best-known 
 agriculturist in America, and who takes great interest in farm imple- 
 ments, writing in Johnson's Universal Encyclopedia on the reaping 
 machine, states : 
 
 "In 1831 the machine of Cyrus H. McCormick was invented and 
 successfully operated. This machine for the first time was an organ- 
 ized instrument, containing practical devices that have been incorpo- 
 rated in every successful reaper made since. As built and tested in the 
 fall of 1831 it contained the reciprocating knife moving through fixed 
 fingers to sever the grain, the platform which received the grain, the 
 reel to hold the grain for the knife, and to incline it upon the platform, 
 and the divider projecting ahead of the knife to separate the grain 
 to be cut from that left standing. The horses traveled ahead of the 
 machine, and beside the standing grain. It was mounted upon two 
 wheels, and the motion to move the operating parts was derived from 
 the outer wheel." 
 
 While in Paris in 1878 Mr. McCormick was elected a member 
 of the French Academy of Science, as " having done more for the 
 cause of agriculture than any other living man. " 
 
 In the article written for the Mechanics' Magazine of May, 1834, 
 Mr. McCormick asserted his claim to the invention of the reaping 
 machine. Throughout his life he defended his position whenever 
 attacked by his rivals in business. At different times Ogle, Bell, Ran- 
 dall and others have been put forward as the inventor. The latest 
 name is that of Hussey. Having shown thus fully what Hussey did, 
 it will be interesting to learn who will next be named inventor by 
 
 the rival manufacturers of reapers. 
 
 R. B. SWIFT, 
 Chicago, April 10, 1897. 
 

 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, 
 BERKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing 
 to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in 
 demand may be renewed if application is made before 
 expiration of loan period. 
 
 6 1925 
 
 JUN9 '64-9 PM 
 
 >yc 
 
 RECD CD 
 
 HIN1 9197055 
 
 
 ? 
 
 & WBPA *w ^ , 
 

 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY