The Project Gutenberg EBook of Obed Hussey, by Various

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: Obed Hussey
       Who, of All Inventors, Made Bread Cheap

Author: Various

Editor: Follett L. Greeno

Release Date: October 15, 2006 [EBook #19547]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OBED HUSSEY ***




Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net






[Illustration: Hussey's American Reaper]



OBED HUSSEY

WHO, OF ALL INVENTORS, MADE BREAD CHEAP


Being a true record of his life and struggles to introduce his greatest
invention, the reaper, and its success, as gathered from pamphlets
published heretofore by some of his friends and associates, and
reprinted in this volume, together with some additional facts and
testimonials from other sources.



EDITED BY
FOLLETT L. GREENO

1912

COPYRIGHTED 1912
BY FOLLETT L. GREENO




PREFACE


Every step in the progress of modern achievement has been met with
strong resistance and hostile contest. There is in business an actual
firing line where continuous conflict wages, and so fierce does the
struggle become that it requires a certain class of men possessing
qualities, not only of energy and perseverance, but of tenacity and
combativeness, aggressive and determined to fight to the last ditch for
commercial supremacy. Such men do not always rely upon the merits of
their cause, nor do they stop to question the justice or injustice of
their methods. They have but one goal, commercial supremacy, and every
effort is bent and every man and method utilized to attain that end.

Men of inventive genius are rarely of that type. They are more often
unassuming and averse to anything like a personal combat. Such a man was
Obed Hussey, inventor of the reaper. Honest and conscientious, enured to
hard and unremitting toil, with the inspiration of a new idea for the
benefit of mankind burning in his brain, he applied himself in the face
of immense difficulties to the production and perfection of the great
gift which he gave to the world. He was a man at once so humble and so
broad in his kindness, so loyal to his Quaker ideals of righteousness
and justice, that he offered no protests, or arguments against his
rivals and opponents other than the superiority of his own machine. Only
his great genius which produced the superior machine (a fact which no
one could possibly contradict) could have saved him from the fierce
opposition of his more powerful rivals. One has only to read from some
of his own letters reproduced in this narrative, to witness the fairness
of his attitude, or to gain a knowledge of his scruples.

Yet it was just this which has operated to deprive Obed Hussey of his
well deserved fame as inventor of the reaper. Moreover, a great industry,
fostered by his opponents in the patent controversy, has grown up, the
basis and life of which is Obed Hussey's invention of the reaper. It
would seem that the vast fortunes made from this industry should be ample
reward for those who are receiving the benefits of a man's life work
without whose genius it would never have been.

In 1897 there was published in Chicago a booklet entitled "A Brief
Narrative of the Invention of Reaping Machines," a large part of which is
reproduced in this book. The pamphlets of which the narrative was a
republication were from the pen of Edward Stabler, an able man and a
mechanic of great skill and ability, a close friend of Mr. Hussey and one
familiar with his reaper and with all the facts which he set forth in
these articles. Such other facts and information as are published herein
were furnished by Martha Hussey, daughter of Mr. Hussey, now living and
by my uncle, Hon. Alexander B. Lamberton, who married Mr. Hussey's widow.
Mr. Lamberton is a man of high standing, having for many years taken an
active part in the affairs of Rochester. He was President of the
Rochester Chamber of Commerce, 1901-1904 (three successive terms), and
has been President of the Rochester Park Board for the past eleven years.
He also won national fame as a hunter and naturalist and was President of
the National Association for the Protection of Fish and Game. His
relation to the Hussey family has made him conversant with the whole
history of the invention of the reaper and of Mr. Hussey's early
struggles.

The facts as set forth in this volume are well known to the reaper men of
the United States, men high up in the industry. Had Mr. Hussey lived, he
would have been able to establish his claim to the invention of the
reaper beyond the shadow of a doubt. This humble man, who, against
tremendous odds and powerful opposition, proved his contentions before
Congress and the United States Patent Office could certainly have won
deserved fame with the public.

His tragic death, which came just at the time when his Congressional
victory was certain and the future of his reaper seemed bright with
promise, occurred while he was en route from Boston to Portland, Maine,
on August 4, 1860. In those days there was often no water in the cars.
The train had stopped at a station when a little child asked for a drink
of water and Mr. Hussey stepped out to get it for her. On his return, as
he attempted to re-enter, the cars started; he was thrown beneath the
wheels and instantly killed. The last act of his life was one of kindness
and compassion.

Obed Hussey is dead, but his machine still lives, an article of
measureless value to the great world of agriculture. His life was one of
long suffering and faithful service and he justly deserves the proper
credit and honor for his great invention. To Obed Hussey belongs the fame
of Inventor of the Reaper as these pages will show, to which purpose
these facts are published by those who knew him and his works, and these
facts, like his works, stand squarely on their own merits.

FOLLETT L. GREENO.
Rochester, N. Y., April 21, 1912.


[Illustration: Obed Hussey, Inventor of the Reaper]




OBED HUSSEY, THE INVENTOR OF THE REAPER


[Sidenote: A Natural Inventor]

Obed Hussey was of Quaker stock, born in Maine in 1792 and early removed
to Nantucket, Mass. When young, like all Nantucket boys, he had a desire
to go to sea, and made one or two whaling voyages. He was of quiet and
retiring disposition, studious, thoughtful, with a strong bent for
studying intricate mechanical contrivances. Little is known of his early
life and there is none living who knew him at that time. He was a
skillful draftsman and incessant worker at different inventions all his
life. He invented a successful steam plow, for which he obtained a medal
in the West. He also invented a machine for grinding out hooks and eyes,
a mill for grinding corn and cobs, a husking machine run by horse power,
the "iron finger bar," a machine for crushing sugar cane, a machine for
making artificial ice, and other devices of more or less note.

His chief characteristic seems to have been an extremely sensitive,
modest and unassuming personality. It was this reticence which has served
to keep him in the background as the inventor of the reaper. He was
unwilling to push himself forward, and his claim to distinction has had
to rest solely upon the merits of his greatest invention.

Mr. Hussey first began work on his reaper in a room at the factory of
Richard B. Chenoweth, a manufacturer of agricultural implements, and the
story of those early efforts is told by Sarah A. Chenoweth, a
granddaughter of the latter:

[Sidenote: Early Efforts]

"As a child, it seemed that I had always known Mr. Hussey. I saw him
every day of my life, for he lived in a room, the use of which my
grandfather, Richard B. Chenoweth, a manufacturer of agricultural
implements in Baltimore City, had given him at his factory. No grown
person was allowed to enter, for in this room he spent most of his time
making patterns for the perfecting of his reaper. I, unforbidden, was
his constant visitor, and asked him numberless questions, one of which,
I remember, was why he washed and dried his dishes with shavings. His
reply was characteristic of himself, 'Shavings are clean.'

[Sidenote: First Trial]

"At this time I was about seven years of age, having been born in 1824.
Although very poor at the time, he was a man of education, upright and
honorable, and so very gentle in both speech and manner that I never
knew fear or awe of him. I do not know for a certainty how long he
remained there,--several years, at the least, I think, but of his
connection with the reaper, I am _positive_, for it was talked of
morning, noon and night. To this day, my brother bears on his finger a
scar, made by receiving a cut from one of the teeth of the machine.
When, finally, the model was completed, it was brought out into the yard
of the factory for trial. This trial was made on a board, drilled with
holes, and stuck full of rye straws. I helped to put those very straws
in place. Mr. Hussey, with repressed excitement, stood watching, and
when he saw the perfect success of his invention, he hastened to his
room too moved and agitated to speak. This scene is vividly impressed on
my mind, as is also a remark made by a workman, that Mr. Hussey did not
wish us to see the tears in his eyes."

The story of Mr. Hussey's efforts at that time is also told by a brother
of the little granddaughter:

    "Chicago, Nov. 25, 1893.

    "Clark Lane, Esq.,
    "Elkhart, Ind.

    "My Dear Sir:--

    "I notice in this morning's 'Inter Ocean' your letter of 22nd in
    regard to the First Reaper and Obed Hussey; now I can say that the
    name of Obed Hussey called to my mind the best friend of my
    boyhood days, as he was in the habit of keeping me supplied with
    pennies when I was short, and taught me how to put iron on a wood
    sled, and helped me to make my first wagon as he turned the wheel
    for me. You are right with regard to the date of the fingers and
    shaped cutters for Reapers, as I saw and handled it, to my sorrow
    in 1833 or '34 before the machine was finished and nearly cut my
    fingers off. I have the whole thing photographed in my mind and
    can show the spot or within 10 feet of it where I lay on the
    floor. It was not possible to try it in Maryland, owing to the
    hilly nature of the ground, and was afterwards taken to Ohio for
    trial and was rebuilt there, or at least a part of it, but of that
    part (the rebuilding) I do not know for a certainty, but the bars,
    fingers and knives I do most positively remember, as I was a lad
    of some eight or nine years old with a mechanical turn of mind and
    was looking into what seemed strange to me, hence I cut my finger
    so bad that I carried the scar for a number of years. I very
    distinctly remember the incomplete reaper made by my old friend,
    Obed Hussey, as it was made in my grandfather's shop in Baltimore,
    Maryland, who was at that time the leading plow-maker of the U. S.
    and that it was made either in 1833 or '34, as I would not have
    had a chance to see it if later than '34 as I was not at home
    until '38, when it had been sent, as I was told, to Ohio for trial
    and some parts had to be rebuilt.

    "Please excuse the liberty I have taken in writing to you, but I
    could not resist the temptation to give my tribute to my old
    friend, O. Hussey.

    "Very respectfully yours,

    (Signed) "W. H. CHENOWETH."

The machine referred to was, no doubt, the reaper completed and tested
near Cincinnati in the harvest of 1833.

[Sidenote: The First Reaper]

It is not known when Mr. Hussey left the Chenoweth factory, but during
the winter of 1832-33 he was at Cincinnati working upon the reaper that,
more than else, won him lasting fame during the harvest of 1833. The
"Mechanics Magazine" for April, 1834, contains an illustration of
"Hussey's Grain Cutter." The picture does not represent the model
deposited in the Patent Office with his application, for it differs in
many essentials from the drawing of the patent, which, of course,
corresponded with the model there filed. It has neither divider nor
outer wheel, and the construction of the platform differs from that of
his regular machine. It is thought that the picture represents the small
working model made at the Chenoweth factory, mentioned by the little
girl.

[Sidenote: Financing the First Reaper]

Mr. Hussey found one who took an interest in his invention and became so
confident of its value that he provided the necessary funds and
mechanical facilities for manufacturing a reaper to be tested in the
field. This was Jarvis Reynolds of Cincinnati. Drawings were made of
the cutting apparatus and a description of it was sent by the inventor
to a friend, Edwin G. Pratt, early in 1833.

[Sidenote: The Reaper Historian]

Another personal friend of Obed Hussey was Edward Stabler, who lived at
Sandy Hill, Maryland, and was, as he termed himself, "a farmer and a
mechanic." That he was a mechanic of ability is evidenced by government
seals which were cut by him, that for the Smithsonian Institute being
worthy of mention as an example of his skill. He was a postmaster from
President Jackson's time until his own death. He is the only one who may
be said to have acted as Hussey's historian, and has left very much
valuable information in the form of letters, legal papers, et cetera. In
1854 and '55 he published "A Brief Narrative of the Invention of Reaping
Machines," "Hussey's Reaping Machine in England," and "A Review of the
Pamphlet of W. N. P. Fitzgerald in Opposition to the Extension of the
Patent of Obed Hussey; and also of the Defense, of Evidence in Favor of
Said Extention," etc. There is sufficient data obtainable from Mr.
Stabler's various publications and material in the Congressional Library
to enable one to judge for himself whether the honors placed upon this
inventor by the Patent Office, the Courts, by Congress, and by the
farmer were earned.

It was at the time Mr. Hussey was residing in Baltimore that he turned
his attention to the idea of a reaping machine and spent his leisure
hours in working out his model. This satisfied him that the thing was
practical, and he undertook an operating machine, which, although
lightly made, was fully sufficient to test the great principle. At this
time he had no knowledge whether any others had undertaken anything in
this direction and there was nothing in his own mechanical occupation
which would make him familiar with the subject.

[Sidenote: McCormick Claims Invention]

As the only other claimant for the honor of inventing the reaper was
Cyrus H. McCormick, reference is here made to a book entitled "Memorial
of Robert McCormick," the father of Cyrus H. McCormick, Leander J.
McCormick and William S. McCormick, published by the said Leander J.
McCormick in 1885, pages 44 to the bottom of page 51, also pages 58 to
61 inclusive, from which I extract:

[Sidenote: Denial by Members of McCormick Family]

"Now, while we have no disposition to question the merits of the
so-called McCormick harvester and binder, which, without doubt, is a
good machine,--though the judgment of foreigners as to its value is of
no consequence,--we do assert that C. H. McCormick was not entitled to
any of the honors showered upon him as its inventor. To be more
explicit, he not only did not invent the said machine, nor mechanically
assist in the combinations of the inventions of others which produced
it, but he never invented or produced any essential elementary part in
any reaping or harvesting machine from the first to last. These
assertions are broad, but absolutely true. They stand squarely upon the
records and the history and state of the art. C. H. McCormick, or any
one for him, cannot deny them with proofs, therefore he is not entitled
to recognition as the man who 'has done more to elevate agriculture than
any man the world has produced,' because of his supposed inventions in
this line; but on the contrary, that the development of Western
agriculture has elevated him, and that he has more money, and received
more honors, 'than any man the world has produced,' by appropriating the
brains of others, and the credit due them as inventors, are propositions
much more defensible."

[Sidenote: Their Affirmation of Hussey's Claim]

"But the man who is entitled to the most credit, as inventor and pioneer
in this business, is Obed Hussey, who, December 31st, 1833, patented the
machine (successfully operated in previous harvest, well known and in
use since to this day), which combined all the main features--except the
reel, which was then an old device--of practical reapers down to the
time, at least, when 'harvesters,' so-called, came into the field."

[Illustration: (From An Old Print)]

[Sidenote: The First Machine]

The following is also copied from "Memorial of Robert McCormick,"
published by Leander J. McCormick in 1885:

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

_"REMONSTRANCE"_

"Of the Citizens of New York against the renewal of Letters Patent
granted to Cyrus H. McCormick, June 21, 1834, for improvements in the
Reaping Machine.

"Among the early reaper inventors of this country, Mr. Obed Hussey, now
of Baltimore, stood for many years deservedly the most prominent, and he
has doubtless by his genius and indefatigable exertions (although in a
modest way) contributed more to the advancement of this invention than
any other man. He first tested his machine in 1833, and took out a
patent for it the 31st of December of that year.

"He first constructed his machine with a reel to gather the grain up to
the cutters, and throw it upon the platform; but on trial, with his
cutter, he thought it unnecessary and only an incumbrance, and,
therefore, threw it aside and has never used it since. The main
frame-work containing the gearing was suspended on two wheels about
three feet four inches in diameter. The platform was attached to the
rear of this frame, and extended out one side of it say six feet. The
team was attached to the front end of the frame and traveled at the side
of the standing grain as in Randall's machine. The cutting apparatus was
pretty much the same as now used in Hussey's machine. The knife is
constructed of steel plates, riveted to a flat bar of iron. These plates
are three inches broad at the end where they are riveted to the bar, and
four and a half inches long, projecting in front, and tapering nearly to
a point, forming what is described as a saw with very coarse teeth,
which are sharp on both edges. This cutter is supported on what he terms
guards, which are attached to the front edge of the platform or
cutter-bar (as termed by Hussey), one every three inches the whole width
of the machine, projecting horizontally in front about six or eight
inches. These guards have long slots through them horizontally through
which the cutter vibrates, and thus form a support for the grain whilst
it is cut, and protect the cutter from liability to injury from large
stones and other obstructions. The cutter is attached by means of a
pitman rod to a crank, which is put in motion by gearing connecting with
one or both of the ground wheels as may be desired, according to
circumstances, which gives to the cutter as the machine advances, a
quick vibrating motion; and each point of the cutter vibrates from the
centre of one guard, through the space between, to the centre of the
next, thus cutting equally both ways. As the machine advances, the grain
is readily cut, and the butts are carried along with the machine which
causes the tops to fall back upon the platform without the aid of the
reel. The grain to be cut was separated from that to be left standing by
means of a point projecting in front of the cutter, in the form of a
wedge, bearing the grain both inwards and outwards, with a board set
edgewise upon it, sloping downwards, to a point in front. The grain was
raked from the machine by a man riding upon it, in rear of the frame, at
the side of the cutter, nearly in range with the guards, with his back
towards the team, sometimes at the side and sometimes behind the
platform. Soon after this date Mr. Hussey changed the construction of
his machine somewhat, used one large ground wheel instead of two, placed
the platform alongside the frame, and placed his raker on a seat by the
side of the large ground wheel, facing the team, and raked the grain off
in rear of the platform.

[Sidenote: The Most Practical]

"This was for many years doubtless the most practical reaping machine
known, and, with the improvements that have been made upon it, from time
to time, it is now preferred to any other in many wheat growing sections
of the country."

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Plea]

The fact and intensity of Mr. Hussey's struggles may, in part, be
gathered from his letter to Edward Stabler, dated March 12, 1854:

    "Baltimore, March 12, 1854.

    "My Esteemed Friend, Edward Stabler:--

    "I think the work goes bravely on. I am unable to express my
    estimation of thy disinterested efforts; I never before
    experienced anything of the kind; it seems entirely new to me to
    have any one go out of their way so much, to do so much for me. I
    am not so much surprised at the progress thee makes considering
    the man, as I am that any man could be found to do me such a
    service. I hope thee will not get weary; I am sure thee will not.
    I hope the Committee will not act so unjustly as to turn their
    backs on all cases because there is 'rascality' in some; because
    there is rascality in some cases, why should a just cause suffer?
    The facts in my case can be easily proved. I made no money during
    the existence of my patent, or I might say I made less than I
    would have made if I had held an under-clerk's position in the
    Patent Office; I would have been better off at the end of the 14
    years if I had filled exactly such station as my foreman holds,
    and got his pay, and would not have had half the hard work, nor a
    hundredth part of the heart-aching. I never experienced half the
    fatigue in rowing after a whale in the Pacific Ocean (which I have
    often done) as I experienced year after year for eighteen years in
    the harvest field, I might say twenty years, for I worked as hard
    in England as I do at home, for in the harvest, wherever I am
    there is no rest for me. If I am guilty of no rascality why should
    I not be compensated for toiling to introduce an invention which I
    thought to be of so much advantage to the World. I know I was the
    _first_ one who successfully accomplished the cutting of
    grain and grass by machinery. If others _tried_ to do it
    before me it was not _doing_ it; being the first who ever did
    it, why should I be obliged to suffer and toil most, and get the
    least by it? No man knows how much I have suffered in body and
    mind since 1833, on account of this thing, the first year I
    operated it in Balto. Three years after I cut the first crop, I
    could not go to meeting for many weeks for want of a _decent
    coat_, while for economy I made my own coffee and eat, slept in
    my shop, until I had sold machines enough to be able to do better;
    there was no rascality in all that. My machines then cost me
    nearly all I got for them when counting moderate wages for my own
    labour. The Quaker who lent me the ninety dollars ten years
    afterward would not then (ten years before) trust me for iron, one
    who was not a Quaker did. There is one thing not generally
    understood; thou will remember the trial at Lloyd's, thou
    remembers also that I received the purse of 100 dollars; now what
    would the world suppose I would do? Why that I would do like the
    flour holders, _keep the price up_! But it is a fact and can
    be proved, that after it was announced to me that the verdict was
    in my favor I said to a gentleman _now I will reduce my price 10
    dollars_, on each machine, _and I did it_, from that hour
    and did not breathe my intention until after that decision was
    announced to me! Where is the man who has done the like under
    similar circumstances? There is no 'rascality' in that. Now I do
    not believe that there is a reaper in the country (which is good
    for anything) at so low a price as mine, and not one on which so
    little profit is made.

    "I will inclose a pamphlet which I suppose thee has already
    seen--it may be useful.

    "Thy friend,

    (Signed) "OBED HUSSEY."

Mr. William N. Whitely, an early inventor and manufacturer of harvesting
machinery, who was for many years the king of the reaper business, and
who fought the Hussey extension "tooth and nail," on January 8, 1897,
wrote to the "Farm Implement News" upon the subject of McCormick's
portrait on the silver certificates, then about to be issued, in which
he refers also to Mr. Hussey, as follows:

[Sidenote: From the Pen of a Hussey Opponent]

"Editor 'Farm Implement News':

"Having been informed that the bureau of engraving and printing was
preparing new $10 silver certificates to be ornamented by the busts of
Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin, and C. H. McCormick, 'inventor
of the reaper,' I write you to say that it would manifestly be unjust to
credit the invention of the reaper to any one man. Mr. McCormick does
deserve great credit for his _enterprise_ and _business skill_
in the many years he was engaged in manufacturing harvesting machinery
and we are pleased to honor his memory; yet so much has been done in
bringing the reaper to its present state of perfection by the many
thousands of inventors that our government would make a mistake in
singling out Mr. McCormick from the many _meritorious_ ones who
have contributed so much to the reaper of the past and of the present
day. We well understand that no effort has been spared for many years
past in keeping C. H. McCormick before the American people as the
inventor of the reaper by his immediate relatives and friends, and we
have no right to find fault with such a course upon their part; but when
the great government of the United States of America proposes to certify
by the above mentioned course to the correctness of the claims made for
C. H. McCormick as the inventor of the reaper, to the disparagement of
so many other _worthy_ inventors and co-workers upon the reaper,
then those who know better should raise their voices against such an
attempted recognition for any one man, of whom the best that can be said
is that he was only one of the many.

[Sidenote: The Reaper Itself Mr. Hussey's Contribution]

"From 1831 to 1834, and for several years thereafter, two persons, i.e.,
Obed Hussey and C. H. McCormick, were striving to produce a successful
reaping machine for cutting grain and grass, as were many others, before
and since. These two men were contemporaneously in the field, and no
doubt they both labored faithfully to accomplish the desired result. The
invention of Obed Hussey, the features of which were embraced in his
first machine in 1832 and 1833, included all the principles of a
practical reaper. It was a side draft or side cut machine; that is, the
cutting apparatus extended out to one side, the animals drawing the
machine moving along by the side of the grain or grass to be cut. It had
two driving and supporting wheels, gearing extending rearward with a
crank and pitman therefrom to reciprocate the cutters, which were
scalloped or projecting blades from a bar and vibrated through slotted
guard fingers which held the stalks to be cut. The cutting apparatus was
hinged to the side of the frame of the machine to enable it to follow
the surface of the ground over which the machine was passing. A platform
was supported by an outer and inner wheel. The operator was seated upon
the machine and raked the grain into sheaves from the platform as it was
cut. Over sixty years have come and gone, yet all the essential features
of the first Hussey machine and all Hussey machines made thereafter
(which were large numbers) employed substantially these devices. The
machine was successful the first time it was completed, and ever after
were the Hussey machines successful in harvesting grain and grass. The
fundamental principles of all harvesting machinery of the world to-day
were furnished by Obed Hussey's invention and patent of 1833; and while
very many and valuable improvements have been made thereon for
harvesting grain and grass, for which credit should be given to the
worthy inventors who followed after Hussey, yet we must not ignore his
valuable contribution, '_the reaper_.'

"Cyrus H. McCormick's first patent was dated in 1834. This was known as
a push machine with a straight cutter, the operator walking by the side
of the machine and raking the grain from the platform. Other
modifications in after years were made on this machine by Mr. McCormick;
and it may be said that the inventive genius of Obed Hussey and the
business tact and skill of C. H. McCormick produced and brought into
practical use the first successful reaping machine of this or any other
country.

[Sidenote: Whose Machine Still Lives?]

"Whatever might have been embodied in the first McCormick machine or in
his experiments or machines for the first fifteen years of his efforts,
the _reaper of the present day does not disclose any principles_
contained in these early efforts of C. H. McCormick; but that cannot be
said of Hussey. _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. The Patent Office, as well as
other sources of information, make good these statements.

"Passing, however, from the early history up to the present time, when
the present mowing machines and grain binding machines are seen in
operation, and taking into account the thousands of patents that have
been issued to American inventors for various features that they have
brought out, it would be but simple justice that all be recognized as
contributors to the building up of such valuable and important pieces of
machinery; and I cannot but repeat that it would be very unjust, unfair
and un-American to single out one person, and that one Mr. McCormick, as
a representative to be used by the government printing bureau, when it
is so well known what he did and what he did not do in the invention of
the reaper. It would be a false monument; it would only be respected by
persons who are ignorant of the facts.

"If this should succeed, it would not be the first time, as likely it
will not be the last time, in the history of mankind where those who did
the work were soon forgotten and those who were more fortunate in being
held up and prominently kept before the public by their friends or
powerful allies received unjustly the credit."

[Sidenote: Early Ventures in Manufacture]

[Sidenote: An Unfortunate Delay]

It will be seen from the foregoing extracts that Mr. Hussey's machines
went early into the field in such quantities as he and other little
manufacturers throughout the country, some of whom ignored the exclusive
rights granted him, could put them out. They were simple, and a few
castings were all that was necessary, except lumber, which was plenty in
the forests of the East and in the groves of the West, to enable a
country wagon maker and blacksmith to put machines into the field. Many
of the earlier inventors, who began the manufacture of reapers of their
own invention, followed that course and castings were sometimes brought
from great distances. Mr. Hussey applied for an extension of his 1833
patent, but, not knowing the exact requirements, his application was
offered too late, sixty days before the expiration of the patent being
the time allotted. Knowing, we presume, but little about law, and still
less about "the rules and regulations of the Patent Office"--for all his
time, and constant labor with his own hands, were required in the
workshop to earn a bare support,--but being very desirous to obtain an
extension of his Patent before it should expire, and also having some
personal acquaintance with Commissioner Ellsworth, Hussey's first
application was made to him in 1845, a short time previous to his going
out of office; certainly not less than twelve months before the
expiration. This is proved by the annexed letter:

    "La Fayette, Ia., July 3, 1854.

    "Dear Sir:--

    "Your letter of some weeks since, referring to a conversation I
    had with you while I was Commissioner of Patents, relative to the
    extention of your patent for a Reaper, would have been answered
    earlier, but for absence and extreme pressure of business."

    "If my recollection will aid you, I most cheerfully state, that
    before your patent expired, you consulted me as to the extension
    of the same. I replied that it was better to postpone an
    application until near the time the patent would run out, for the
    Office must estimate the profits of the invention during the whole
    term; and you accordingly postponed it. I regret you postponed it
    too long. The publication of thirty days before the patent
    expired, was a rule as published by myself. If you have lost your
    opportunity for relief through (the) Patent Office, you must of
    course go to Congress. I have always regarded your improvement as
    valuable, and that the country is greatly indebted to your
    persevering efforts, notwithstanding the obstacles presented.

    "Yours respectfully,

    "HENRY L. ELLSWORTH.

    "Mr. Obed Hussey, Balto., Md."

Hussey acted on this official advice, and did "postpone an application
until near the time the patent would run out"--literally so, for he was
not advised of even the "thirty days' rule."

[Sidenote: Why Mr. Hussey's Application Was Late]

When he again applied, and not "until near the time the patent would run
out," Edmund Burke was Commissioner of Patents. He states in a letter to
Senators Douglas and Shields, under date March 4th, 1850, as follows:

"In relation to the patent of Hussey, if my memory serves me, his patent
expired some time within the latter part of December, 1847. During that
month, and within some ten or twelve days before the expiration of his
patent, he applied to me as Commissioner of Patents for an extension. I
informed him, that inasmuch as the act of Congress prescribed the mode
in which patents should be extended; required a reasonable notice to be
given to the public in sundry newspapers, published in those parts of
the country most interested against such extension; and as the board had
decided that 'reasonable' notice should be a publication of the
application for extension three weeks prior to the day appointed for the
hearing, there was not time to give the required notice in his case; and
I advised Mr. Hussey not to make his application, and thus lose the fee
of $40 required in such cases, as he inevitably would, without the least
prospect of succeeding in his application--but to petition Congress for
an extension, which body had the power to grant it."

[Sidenote: An Able and Unanswerable Report]

    "Washington, 5th Sept., 1854.

    "Obed Hussey, Esq., Baltimore:--

    "My Dear Sir: I have recently learned, with surprise and indignation,
    that certain speculating harpies who fill their coffers with the
    products of other men's brains, and who, in your case, seek to 'reap
    where they sow not' are basely and unjustly endeavoring to prevent
    a renewal of your patent for your Reaping and Mowing Machine,' upon
    the ground [among others] that you and your agents have neglected to
    press your Claim properly before Congress.

    "I have been your Agent from the time the claim was first presented
    to Congress, and know that the Charge is entirely unfounded.

    "The facts according to the best of my recollection and belief, are
    as follows: Your Claim for a renewal was presented to Congress at the
    very first Session, after you ascertained that your application to the
    Commissioner could not be acted upon under the rules of the Patent
    Office. Every paper and proof necessary to establish your right to a
    renewal of your patent, under the existing laws, was procured, and
    promptly placed with your memorial, before Congress. No further proof
    was required by the Committee on Patents, in the Senate, and your
    right to a renewal was fully established by an able and unanswerable
    report of that Committee, accompanied by a bill for a renewal. This
    report and bill were printed by order of the Senate, and were noticed
    as a part of the proceedings of Congress, by the press throughout the
    United States, and every body thus notified of your application.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Methods]

    "From that period to the present time, I do not think there has been
    a single Congress at which all proper efforts were not made to
    obtain the action of that Body. Members were not annoyed with
    indecent importunity; nor were any powerful combinations of
    interested individuals resorted to, to force your Claim upon the
    consideration of Congress. This was not in accordance with your
    taste, or your means. I well remember, however, that you frequently
    visited this City on that business; and that at almost every
    session, you either brought or sent to me, to be laid before
    Congress, some new evidence of the triumph of your great invention.
    These documents were faithfully laid before that body, or sent to
    the senators from Maryland for that purpose. On one occasion, as
    your agent, I addressed a somewhat extended communication to the
    Senators from Maryland, attempting to show the vast importance of
    your invention to the Agricultural interests of the United States,
    and the strong claims you had to a renewal of your patent, and
    requested them as the Representatives of your State in the Senate,
    to give their attention and influence to accomplish that end.

    "At a subsequent Session, this request was repeated, to one or both
    of the Senators from that State.

    "I can also state with certainty that hardly a Session of Congress
    has passed since your memorial was first presented, at which
    prominent and Scientific Agriculturalists, in different parts of the
    Country, who were acquainted with the merits of your invention, have
    not used their influence with Members of Congress to obtain a
    renewal of your patent. Any pretense, therefore, that your Claim has
    not been duly presented, notified to the public, and urged with all
    proper care and diligence upon the attention of Congress, I repeat
    is totally unfounded.

    "It will be a stain upon the justice of the Country, if one whom
    truth and time must rank among its greatest Benefactors, shall be
    stricken down and permitted to die in indigence by the interested
    and unworthy efforts thus made to defeat you.

    "You are at liberty to use this statement in any manner you may
    desire.

    "Very truly and respectfully,

    "Your Ob't Ser'vt,

    "CHA'S E. SHERMAN."

Although not coming in the natural order of events, I quote from an
enclosure found in a letter written to Hon. H. May, evidently a member
of Congress. Mr. Hussey having failed to apply for an extension of his
1833 patent early enough, a bill was introduced in Congress with an
extension in view. In some correspondence between Mr. Hussey and the
Hon. H. May an enclosure is found reading as follows:

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Defense]

"During the examination of my case in the Committee-room on the 21st
inst. you asked me a question, and accompanied it with a remark to the
effect 'Why could I not raise a company in Baltimore with sufficient
capital and make as many machines as Howard & Co. and compete with them
on equal ground? The excitement of the occasion disqualified me for
giving a full reply to your question and remarks. I was at the time so
impressed with the injustice and the great hardship of being compelled
to compete with the world for what of right belonged to myself
exclusively that I had not the words to express my feelings. Could any
gentleman look back twenty-one years and see me combating the prejudices
of the farmers, and exerting the most intense labor of body and mind,
and continuing to do so from year to year, at the very door of poverty,
and also look back on those New York parties through the same period,
accumulating wealth by the usual course of business, and perhaps
watching my progress, and waiting for the proper moment to step in with
their money power and grasp the lion's share of the prize which justly
belongs to myself. If they could look back on the circumstances and
comprehend the case in all its reality and truth I should have no fear
of a just decision by the Committee in the House of Representatives. The
Government which can tolerate and uphold such a state of things would
appear to me to be a hard Government.

"The end and design of the Patent Laws was to reward the inventor for a
valuable invention by giving him the exclusive right to make and vend
the article which he had invented and fourteen years was deemed a
sufficient time in which to secure that reward. The telegraph was
perfect on its first trial. It required no improvement. On the contrary,
half the wire was dispensed with. The Government was at the cost of
trying the experiment and has since heaped wealth on the inventor. My
fourteen years were required in perfecting my invention without any
return for time and labor. (The finishing touch to his cutting apparatus
is, no doubt here referred to, and shown in his patent of 1847.)

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Protest]

"Public opinion on the subject of valuable inventions is liberal until
an obscure individual appears in the community claiming the reward for a
valuable invention; the disposition then seems to be to let him shrink
into a corner. The world has got the advantage of his labors and has no
further use for him; every unreasonable man in the community will at
once claim an equal right with the inventor of the device and one not
content to urge their claims by misrepresentation but must heap abuses
on the poor inventor who they have in a great measure pushed out of
their way. The idea that a wise Government, of an enlightened country,
can not only look on and suffer such injustice but will actually
encourage it by disregarding the prayers of the poor inventor is a
mystery to those who build their hopes on the dogma that '_Truth is
mighty and will prevail_.' I hope the Committee will not pass lightly
over my case but duly consider, as I believe they will, to whom the
advantages of this invention belongs, whether to me or to the parties in
New York. My chief aim in addressing this to you is to endeavor to draw
a parallel between myself and the parties in New York, and thereby
secure your good opinion in my favor."

[Sidenote: Farmers Using Hussey Reaper]

Edward Stabler, on January 11, 1854, wrote to Hon. Henry May as follows:

"As requested I have examined the petitions of the 450 farmers who
advocate the extension of Hussey's patent and from a personal
acquaintance or by character with much larger portion in Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, and on reliable information of
those from New York--234 in number--I am satisfied that they are
wheat-growers to an amount of not less than from four to 500,000 bushels
annually. * * * They used Hussey's reaper, and some of them three and
four, or more of these great labor-saving implements."

Mr. Edward Stabler writes to Henry May, under date March 19, 1854:

"The most that I fear is that Hussey's interests (which all appear
willing to admit is a meritorious case) may suffer in the contests that
I am satisfied will take place with regard to Moore & Haskell's and
McCormick's extensions. I should be greatly pleased, and have stronger
hopes if Hussey's case could be acted on promptly and before that
contest begins.

"On the ground of its having been so long and so favorably reported on,
by the Senate's Committee in '48--six years next May, possibly it could
be called up at an earlier date,--the sooner the better, to avoid
competition from interested parties, and which I certainly anticipate if
long delayed in either House of Congress. Honestly believing the cause
just and right, for no fee, however large, could tempt me to advocate
what I thought unjust or wrong, I shall persevere as long as there is
ground for hope. If we fail I shall have pleasing reflections, doing
unto others as you would that they under similar circumstances should do
unto you."

Mr. Edward Stabler, on February 5, 1854, wrote to J. A. Pierce, member of
one of the Committees, a letter from which the following is extracted:

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Character and Service]

"I will, however, preface my remarks by saying that I have no connection
whatever with his business operations nor pecuniary interest in his
affairs, but being well acquainted with him I am free to say, that I
have known no man on whose word I have placed more implicit reliance, no
one more honestly entitled to what he asks for.

"He has faithfully devoted the prime of his life, and no small portion
of it either, in the invention and the perfecting of the reaping and
mowing machine; and his untiring perseverance has certainly been crowned
with success so far as to confer a signal and lasting benefit on his
country; but unfortunately he has derived no corresponding advantage for
himself, and from no fault on his part.

[Sidenote: Opinion of an Able Mechanic]

[Sidenote: Mr. Stabler's Testimony]

"While C. H. McCormick has literally fattened on the agricultural public
by the sale of his inferior and cheaply made machines--for such I do
consider them, both from my own observations and the report to me by
those who have been induced to purchase them--Hussey has been pirated on
from all quarters, and others reaping the reward of his labors. And I
perceive by the papers on file, and accompanying the printed report (No.
16) that this same C. H. McCormick has actually petitioned against the
renewal of Hussey's patent. It is really a very hard case, that a poor
man and one of the most deserving in the community in every sense of the
term, should thus fail of a just reward when he has done so much for the
benefit of others. * * * Believing as I do that the extension is no more
than sheer justice to Obed Hussey,--quite equal in merit to any that has
been granted,--as one of the _most meritorious_ in the language of
the Committee, I do most earnestly solicit thy kind aid and influence to
get it through the Senate. * * * He was then (and still is) a comparatively
poor man; without the means from his limited sales to extend his business
in a profitable manner or to protect his known and acknowledged rights
from the depredations of others. His shops--and I speak from personal
knowledge--are for the most part dilapidated sheds--too confined and
cramped up to do any part of his work to the best advantage, and from a
personal knowledge speaking as a practical machinist of some 25 years
experience, I do know that his profits are far less than some other
machine makers--not the half of what is usually supposed.

[Sidenote: The Two Machines Compared]

"Take, for example, the machines as usually made by Obed Hussey and C. H.
McCormick--for I am familiar with both; owing to the quality of the work,
costs of material and arrangement of the mechanism, _two_ of McCormick's
can be made by him for little or no more than the cost to Hussey of _one_
of his. Such, too, is the statement on oath of competent men employed by
both manufacturers. McCormick's foreman and clerk have sworn (see
petition from New York against his extension) that his machines are made
for some $35 to $40 each. Any man who will undertake to make and sell
Hussey machines as he makes them for much less than double this sum, will
soon beg his bread if he depends on his profits to buy it, unless he
_cheats_ his hands out of _their_ part."

A postscript is added, which reads:

"I should have made no allusion to C. H. McCormick or to his machines,
had he not volunteered by petition to injure his rival--in my opinion a
most worthy, reliable and deserving man--and I would add that in my
estimation the two machines differ just about as widely as the two men."

We may assume that Mr. Hussey must have begun on his large machine late
in 1832, or early in 1833, at latest. During the early part of the
harvest of 1833 he was in the field. "The machine was started," Stabler
tells us, "but owing to some part giving way, or some slight defect not
apparent until then, it at first failed to work satisfactorily. One
burly fellow present picked up a reaping cradle and, swinging it with an
air of great exultation, exclaimed, 'This is the machine to cut the
wheat!'" Another account charges the breakage to a fractious team.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Triumph]

"After the jeers and merriment of the crowd had somewhat subsided, the
inventor remedied the defect, and assisted by the laborers present--the
horses having been removed--pulled the machine to the top of an adjacent
hill; when, alone, he drew the machine down the hill and through the
standing grain, when it cut every head clean in its track. The same
machine was directly afterwards exhibited before the Hamilton County
Agricultural Society near Carthage, on the 2nd day of July, 1833."

The secretary of the Society wrote an exceedingly favorable report. The
group of spectators present at this trial drew up a testimonial that was
very favorable indeed. On July 2, 1833, then, we are warranted in
saying, the problem that had so long exercised the minds of inventors
was solved.

[Sidenote: The Hussey Reaper in the Field]

[Sidenote: Public Tests]

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

[Illustration: Silver medal awarded to Mr. Hussey for the Reaper at
Baltimore in 1845.]

[Sidenote: A Hussey-McCormick Contest]

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

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

[Sidenote: Mr. Roane's Letter]

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

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

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Not a Business Man]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: A Contract]

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Editorial Comment]

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

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

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

"The letter is as follows:

    "'Hagerstown, August 15, 1837.

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

[Sidenote: A Hussey Testimonial]

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

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

[Sidenote: Durability of the Machine]

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

[Sidenote: A Labor-Saving Machine]

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

    'JOHN STONEBRAKER.

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

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

[Sidenote: Other Testimonials]

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

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

    "'September 15, 1837.

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

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

    'Yours respectfully,

    'F. TILGHMANN.'

    'Mr. Hussey.'

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

    "'Cambridge, July 3, 1838.

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

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

"To which is appended the following postscript:

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

    'SAMUEL LE COMPTE.'"

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

HUSSEY'S GRAIN CUTTER

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

[Sidenote: Invitation of Agricultural Board]

[Illustration: Silver medal won by Mr. Hussey with the Reaper at
Baltimore in 1850.]

[Sidenote: How the Reaper Worked]

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

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

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Awarded Silver Cups]

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lane continues:

[Sidenote: The True Inventor]

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

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

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

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

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

(Signed) "CLARK LANE."

[Sidenote: McCormick Late in the Field]

[Sidenote: McCormick's Application Rejected]

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

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

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Attitude]

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

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

[Sidenote: Not McCormick's Inventions]

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

[Sidenote: Neither Brilliant nor Extraordinary]

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

The Commissioner further said:

[Sidenote: An Efficient Machine]

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

The Commissioner further said, referring to the 1847 patent:

[Sidenote: McCormick's "Invention" Valueless]

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

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

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

[Sidenote: A Worthless Machine]

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

I further find:

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

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

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

[Sidenote: McCormick Had to Pay for Hussey Improvements]

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

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


COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Claim of Opponents Overruled]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Opponents Contentions Not Proven by Facts]

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

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

[Sidenote: Utility of Hussey's Inventions]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: An Inadequate Profit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The receipts on the same account are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES

And an Examination of the Claims for Priority of Invention

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

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

[Sidenote: Attempts of the Ancients]

As to the theoretical portion of the business, the enquiry might be
greatly extended; indeed for past centuries, as we have imperfect
accounts of Reaping Machines being used by the Romans. If the ancients
were successful in making a practical implement for Reaping, by horse,
or ox power, as some ancient writers assert, we certainly have no
correct and reliable account of a machine that would be considered
efficient or useful at the present day; a machine to save or tear off
the heads only--as described by Pliny and Palladius--would more properly
be termed a gathering machine, and not at all suited to the wants and
habits of modern farmers.

[Illustration: Silver medal won by Mr. Hussey with the Reaper at New
York in 1852.]

[Sidenote: English Endeavors]

It was not until near the close of the past, and within the present
century, so far as we can learn, that the subject again claimed much
attention of the inventive talent of either this, or foreign countries.
Of some half a dozen or more attempts made in Great Britain, and
recorded in Loudon's Encyclopedia of Agriculture, the Edinburg
Encyclopedia, and other similar works, all, or nearly all, relied either
upon scythes or cutters, with a rotary motion, or vibrating shears. And
although there was "go ahead" about them in one sense of the term, as it
was intended for the "cart to go before the horse," none of them
appeared to have gained, or certainly not long retained, the confidence
of the farmers; for at the exhibition of the "World's Fair in London,"
the whole Kingdom could not raise a Reaping Machine;--a practical
implement which was considered worth using and exhibiting.

[Sidenote: English Failure]

That the idea was obsolete there, and had been unsuccessful, is clearly
proved by the fact that the English journals and writers of that period,
without a single exception, spoke of the American Reapers--after the
trials!--as "completely successful"--"taking every one by surprise"--"their
reaping machines have astonished our agriculturists"--"few subjects have
created a greater sensation in the agricultural world than the recent
introduction into the country of the reaping machines"--the "curiosity of
the crowd was irrepressible to witness such a novelty, even to stopping
the machine, and trampling the grain under foot," etc., etc.--Much more
and similar evidence is at hand; but _better_ need not be produced to
prove the entire failure of reaping machines in Great Britain, as late as
1851. We would also refer the curious to Rees' Cyclopedia, for a very
brief account of what had been effected;--a few paragraphs only are
written on reaping machines, but several pages are compiled as to the use
of the scythe, sickle or reap hook, and reaping _fork_. The Doctor refers
to Plunknett's Machine by name, as being "somewhat on a new principle,
the horse drawing the machine instead of pushing it forward as was the
old mode of applying the power." The machine is fully represented in the
Farmers' Dictionary; and he winds up the account as follows: "But the
success with which they have been attended has hitherto been far from
complete;" again, "Other machines of this kind have still more lately
been invented by other persons [meaning of course his own countrymen] but
without answering the purpose in that full and complete manner which is
necessary in this sort of work."

The Doctor undertakes to tell us _what is wanted_, but fails entirely to
inform his readers _how to do it_. That John Bull had not done it is
clearly established; but Brother Jonathan, the "Live Yankee," as John
calls his cousin, has solved the problem; and the solution is so simple,
when you know how to do it! that it is marvelously strange no one for
centuries had before struck upon the right key.

Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P. and F. R. S.--the chief manager of the London
Exhibition--admits the failure, though apparently reluctantly; but the
source of his information, in writing about the American machines, was
interested and defective; and when he again writes on this subject he
will be better informed. He says: "At the opening of this century it was
thought that a successful reaping machine had been invented, and a
reward had been voted by Parliament to its author. The machine was
employed here and abroad, but from its intricacy, fell into disuse.
Another has been lately devised in one of our Colonies, which cuts off
the heads of the corn, but leaves the straw standing, a fatal defect in
an old settled country, where the growth of corn is forced by the
application of dung. Our farmers may well, therefore, have been
astonished by an American implement which not only reaped the wheat, but
performed the work with the neatness and certainty of an old and perfect
machine. Its novelty of action reminded one of seeing the first engine
run on the Liverpool and Manchester railway in 1830. Its perfection
depended on its being new only in England; but in America the result of
repeated disappointments and untired perseverance, etc."

[Sidenote: English Claims]

We propose to prove, and by better evidence, and disinterested too, than
he then had, that in 1833, near the date of "the first engine run on the
Liverpool and Manchester railway in 1830," the American machine cut the
"corn" just as perfectly, with equal "neatness and certainty" as did the
"Novelty" or "Rocket" pass over the Liverpool and Manchester railway. We
shall again recur to English authority. John Bull is a right honest and
clever old gentleman in the main; but he is rather prone to claim what
he has no title for--inventions, as well as territory. We are willing to
give him what he can show a clear deed for, but no more. He beat us by
one year only in the Locomotive; but we fairly beat him eighteen or
twenty in the Reaping Machine; and yet some of his writers contend to
this day that we "_pirated_" from Bell and other English inventors
all we know!

[Sidenote: English Inventors and Their Mistakes]

The excitement and sensation thus produced by the American Reapers,
caused renewed efforts on the part of English inventors; some who had
near a quarter of a century previously, been endeavoring to effect this
"great desideratum," to use an English editorial; and the most
conspicuous of these was one invented by the Rev. Patrick Bell, of
Scotland. Of the half a score or more and previous inventors in Great
Britain--Boyce, Plunknett, Gladstone of Castle Douglass, Salmon of
Waburn, Smith of Deanston in Perthshire, etc., etc.--none were waked up
from their Rip Van Winkle slumbers; or if they were, the world is not
advised of it. They all used revolving scythes, revolving cutters, or
shears instead. Several trials were made with Bell's in 1828 or 1829;
and a very full and minute description with plates, was published some
24 or 25 years ago, and may be found in Loudon's Encyclopedia of
Agriculture.

It was, however, too complicated, too cumbersome and expensive,
performed too little service, and required too much tinkering and
repairs to be viewed as a practical and available implement.--The
English farmer found the sickle or reap hook preferable, for it was
everywhere resorted to.--The cutting apparatus of Bell's consisted of
shears, one half stationary, the other vibrating, and turning on the
bolt that confined them to the iron bar which extends across the front
of the frame. The vibrating motion was given by connecting the back end
of one shear to a bar--making the bolt the fulcrum--and which was
attached to a crank, revolving by gear to the driving wheels.

[Sidenote: Bell's Machine]

A reel was used to gather the grain to the shears, and adjustable, back
and forth, and higher or lower, to suit the height of the grain. A
revolving apron delivered the grain in a continuous swath; and the team
was attached to the rear of the machine, _pushing_ it through the
grain.

We have been more minute in the description of Bell's machine, because
it may have been the foundation of some of the early, and nearly
simultaneous attempts made in this country. In fact it does not admit of
doubt that several were nearly identical with Bell's in the use of the
shears and reel, though with much more simple gearing, and in the
general arrangement. Whether they were original inventions, cannot be
ascertained. In this country, from 1800 to 1833 out of some 15 or 20
patents granted for "cutting grain" and "cutting grass," only four
appear to have been "restored"; i.e. technically speaking, "not
restored" in models and drawings after the burning of the Patent Office
in 1836. Many, if not most of them, were probably improvements in the
grain cradle, and mowing scythe; though the names are preserved, there
is no record to show for what particulars the patents were granted.
There can be no doubt, however, that the inventors considered them
valueless, as they were "not restored," though Congress voted large sums
to replace the burnt models and drawings, without any expense to the
parties. Of those restored James Ten Eyck's patent is dated 1825, Wm.
Manning's in 1831, Wm. & Thos. Schnebly's in 1833, and Obed Hussey's
also in 1833.

James Ten Eyck used an open reel; not only to gather the grain, but his
cutters or shears, were attached to, and revolved with the reel;--very
much, if not exactly on the principle of shearing cloth.

William Manning used another form of cutters, and quite different from
James Ten Eyck's--he likewise used fingers or teeth to support the grain
during the action of the horizontal cutters.

William and Thomas Schnebly of Maryland also used the reel, with shears
as cutters, very similar to Bell's.

Abraham Randall, or Rundell, of New York (for the name is spelled both
ways), was another of the early inventors. His patent of 1835 is not
restored, though it is stated his machine was experimented with as early
as 1833 or 1834. He also used the reel, and his cutters, it is said,
were similar to Bell's--using shears.

T. D. Burrall, of New York, was also one of the early inventors, about
1832 or 1833, but we believe professedly after Bell's, so far as to use
a reel and shears.

[Sidenote: None Successful]

[Sidenote: Hussey's Machine an American Triumph]

None of these machines, however, Hussey's excepted, were successful, or
were used any length of time; nor is it necessary here to refer
particularly to other attempts, about this time, or indeed prior to this
period, for they were equally unsuccessful; and their inventors cannot
claim the merit of doing a thing, that was not in fact performed--making
an efficient and successful Reaper. We may here remark, however, that so
far as now known, no machine like Bell's, on the shear or scissor
principle, has succeeded in this country; or as we believe, is ever
likely to succeed. We have seen a number by different inventors, and all
have failed to give satisfaction. They may work well for a very brief
period and with keen edges; but as they become dull, the shears are
forced apart by the straw and grass--particularly the latter, and the
machine fails, as it inevitably must do, in its allotted duty, and for
very obvious reasons. If the shear rivet or bolt is kept tight there is
too much friction; if loose enough to play freely it is too loose to cut
well; and, lastly, it is too liable to wear at the most important point
of the whole machine. During the harvest of 1853 in England every effort
was made to uphold Bell's machine; in some cases prizes were awarded to
it, though evidently partial; for in the face of these awards some who
witnessed the trials, and had used Bell's machines, laid them aside and
purchased Hussey's. At the close of the season, as we learn from
reliable authority, even the engineers who operated Bell's, frankly
admitted that the American machine as exhibited by Hussey, was the
better implement, owing to the arrangement of the guards and knives;
Bell's required so much tinkering, that several machines were required
to cope with one of Hussey's. At the recent harvest (1854) the Mark Lane
Express acknowledges that the Royal Agricultural Societies' show at
Lincoln, Bell's machine was "at last fairly beaten" by Hussey's,
including McCormick's, and Hussey's machine received the prize over all
others. It is just, however, to add, that far as we consider Bell's
machine behind some of the present day, yet complex and cumbersome as it
was, it combined more of the essential features of success than any
Reaper that preceded it.

[Illustration: Bronze medal won by Mr. Hussey with the Reaper at New
York in 1853.]

We now come to 1833, the date of Hussey's patent; and to 1834, the date
of C. H. McCormick's first patent. These were known and admitted by all
to have been the rivals for popular favor and patronage, from about the
year 1844 or 1845 to the opening of the great Industrial Exhibition in
London, in 1851. To these, therefore, the enquiry will be more
particularly directed.

We must, however, refer back for a brief period to 1831; for although C.
H. McCormick's first patent was dated in 1834, yet when he applied for
his extension in 1848 he alleged that _his invention_ was prior to
Hussey's, as he had invented a machine in 1831, two years before the
date of O. Hussey's, and three years before the date of his own patent.
The evidence produced _written and prepared_ by C. H. McCormick (and
now on file in the Patent Office) was deemed inadmissible and informal
by the Board, and it refused to go on with the examination either as to
priority or validity of invention without notice to Hussey--his patent
being called in question by McCormick--to be present when the
depositions were taken.

[Sidenote: McCormick's Attempt to Get Hussey's Signature]

Before, however, receiving the official notice, he was called on by C. H.
McCormick in Baltimore, and requested to sign a paper, agreeing or
admitting, that the testimony he had himself prepared should be
considered evidence--i.e. considered formal; alleging that it would save
him trouble and expense in going to Virginia. This was declined by Hussey
on the ground that he might thus unwittingly injure himself; he having
previously applied for an extension of his own Patent. Neither was he
then aware of the nature of this evidence; or until this interview, was
he advised of C. H. McCormick's application for extension.

Hussey was subsequently duly notified by order of the Board to be present
at taking the depositions in Augusta County, Virginia,--the Board having
adjourned three weeks for that purpose.

Either just previous or subsequent to these proceedings the case was
referred by the Commissioner of Patents, or Board of Extensions, to Dr.
Page, one of the Examiners of the office.

His report is as follows:

    "Patent Office,

    "Jan. 22d, 1848.

    "Sir:

    "In compliance with your requisition I have examined the patent of
    Cyrus H. McCormick, dated 31st June, 1834, and found that the
    principal features embraced in said patent, viz, the cutting-knife
    and mode of operating it, the fingers to guide the grain and the
    revolving rack for gathering the grain, were not new at the time
    of granting said letters patent.

    "The knife-fingers and general arrangements and operation of the
    cutting apparatus are found in the reaping machine of O. Hussey,
    patented 31st Dec., 1833.

    "The revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its
    operation is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck,
    patented 2nd November, 1825.

    "Respectfully submitted,

    "CHAS. G. PAGE,
    "Examiner.

    "Hon. Edmund Burke, Com'r of Patents."

As some have enquired, and others may enquire, why a patent should issue
under these circumstances, we reply, that previous to 1836 but little, if
any, examination was made as to priority of inventions, or into preceding
Patents; the applicant made oath as to his invention, and the patent was
issued as a matter of course. And as another matter of course, if the
rival interests clashed, litigation was the result:--the Courts and
juries often decided what they little understood, and at times not at
all, after the pleading of well fee'd lawyers; a pretty fair illustration
of the fable of the boys and frogs; it may be _fun_ for the lawyers but
it is _death_ to the hopes of many a poor patentee. We are, however,
pleased to perceive a disposition manifested by the courts to sustain
patents; even if occasionally an unjust claim is recognized as a valid
one, it is better, according to the legal and moral maxim, that half a
dozen rogues should escape punishment for a time, than that one innocent
person should be unjustly convicted; the rogue is almost certain to be
caught in the end, and truth will ultimately triumph.

[Sidenote: McCormick-Hussey Controversy]

This testimony was taken in due form at Steele's Tavern, Augusta County,
Va., McCormick and Hussey both being present. It is too voluminous to
copy entire, but we will refer briefly to each, having read them
carefully, and obtained certified copies of all from the Patent office.

Dr. N. M. Hitt testified to a reaping machine being made by C. H.
McCormick in 1831--it had a straight sickle blade.

William S. McCormick and Leander J. McCormick, brothers of C. H.
McCormick, also testified to the making of a machine in 1831.

Mary McCormick, mother of C. H. McCormick, agreed in general with the
testimony of her sons,--did not doubt but it was correct, "it appears
familiar to me," but testified to nothing in particular.

[Sidenote: Testimony]

John Steele, Jr., was tavernkeeper at "Steele's Tavern," testified as to
the year being 1831 or 1832. In his amended testimony, admitted that C.
H. McCormick wrote the paper describing the machine for him to testify
to; recollects little else about the machine than the straight sickle
edge.

Eliza H. Steele refused to testify without first seeing a certificate
previously signed by her; admitted that C. H. McCormick wrote it for her
to sign; her testimony as to the year depended on the building of a
certain house, on which the workmen put 1831.

John McCown--was a blacksmith--testified that _he_ made the "straight
sickle blade," and that it was "a long, straight sickle" blade.

This was most singular testimony to found a claim of priority of
invention on, and by which to invalidate another man's patent. There was
discrepancy in the evidence as to the year of the invention; also whether
the machine was intended for one or two horses; how the "fingers" were
arranged, and whether of _wood_ or _iron_, _above_ or _below_, the
"straight sickle blade." Two of the brothers--one at least who helped to
make, if not also to invent this machine--testified that the plan or
arrangement of the machine here sworn to, was changed in 1840, 1841,
1842, or 1843, they did not know which; from 9 to 12 years afterwards!

John McCown swears positively that he helped to build the machine, so far
at least as to forge "a long, straight sickle;" but neither he, or a
single one of the seven sworn witnesses, "_ladies_ and _gentlemen_,"
testify that the machine ever worked a single hour, or cut as much grain
of any kind as would make a single sheaf![1]

      [1] The reading of this testimony strongly reminds us of an
      anecdote related at the hustings in Virginia by that talented but
      eccentric character, John Randolph, of Roanoake, in a political
      canvass with an opponent, who promised what he would do for his
      constituents, if elected. Randolph told him he was like one of his
      overseers, a plausible fellow, but on whom little reliance was to
      be placed--and who, desiring to show what fine crops he had
      raised, exhibited a better tally board than the crop could
      justify. "I told him," said Randolph, "this is very good tally,
      John, but where's the corn? and I tell the gentleman, I don't want
      to see his tally, but the corn--the evidence of what he ever did
      to entitle him to a seat in Congress." The effect was electric,
      and the hustings rang with plaudits. Now we would say to C. H.
      McCormick, this is very good tally, John, but where's the Corn?
      The evidence that the machine ever cut a single acre of grain.

[Sidenote: "John Smith"]

In a long communication to Commissioner Burke in 1848, together with a
list of sales and profits, C. H. McCormick states, and on oath, that he
had exhibited his machine in 1840 or 1841 to a considerable number of
farmers and _very satisfactorily_, though but one person could be
induced to purchase--a Mr. John Smith we believe--and that up to 1842,
_eleven_ years after the alleged invention, he had sold but two
machines, and one of them conditionally. Again, in the _same paper_
he states, "but they failed to operate well," and had to be altered--in
other words they would not work at all. Amongst others, he had applied
to "the farmer of Virginia, Mr. Sampson," for a certificate as to the
satisfactory working of the machine, but it was declined.

We are not surprised at this; for some 35 years ago we were personally
acquainted with this "farmer of Virginia," and also with his mode of
farming; and know that a machine of any kind to please him _must
work_ and must also work "_well_." Richard Sampson was at that
early day in this "age of progress," one of the best and most practical
farmers in the "Old Dominion," and was not a man to be "caught napping,"
either at home or abroad.

The record shows that "on March 29, 1848, the Board met agreeably to
adjournment--Present, James Buchanan, Secretary of State, Edmund Burke,
Commissioner of Patents, and R. H. Gillett, Solicitor of the
Treasury--and having examined the evidence adduced in the case decide
that said patent ought not to be extended."

(Signed) "JAMES BUCHANAN,
"Secretary of State.

"EDMUND BURKE,
"Commissioner of Patents.

"R. H. GILLETT,
"Solicitor of the Treasury."

This evidence, taken in due form, and certified to by the magistrates in
Augusta and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia, was _not_ ruled out as
informal, as we have seen it stated: but it was certainly laid before
the Board; and was doubtless satisfactory both as to priority of
invention, and in connection with Dr. Page's report, conclusive, "that
said patent ought not to be extended."

We have also seen it stated that Hussey appeared before the Board of
Extensions "to contest the extension of McCormick's patent."

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Acted in Self Defense]

We think injustice--and no doubt unintentionally--is here done to
Hussey. Until the order of the Board was passed to afford him the
opportunity to defend his rights, assailed without his knowledge, he was
not aware of C. H. McCormick's application. As a matter of course he
then attended, but stated in writing, and which is now on file, "I had
no intention, neither had I any desire to place any obstacle in the way
of the extension of C. H. McCormick's patent. But the course he has
taken before your Board and before Congress has compelled me to act in
self defense."

[Sidenote: McCormick Assailed the Hussey Extension]

Not so with C. H. McCormick; for when his claims were rejected by the
Board of Extensions,--and most justly, as we think, in accordance with
the evidence--_he petitioned Congress against Hussey's extension_:
and to this most ungenerous, illiberal and unfair course, and of which
Hussey was for years totally ignorant, C. H. McCormick may justly
attribute this enquiry;--but for this, it had never been written. Our
object is not to injure C. H. McCormick; but it is that justice may be
done to another, whose interests and rights he was the first to assail.

If the foregoing testimony is not conclusive, as regards priority of
invention in 1831 against C. H. McCormick, we think the evidence which
follows--and which no one will pretend to call in question, or
doubt--establishes the fact that the machine of 1831 was good for
nothing,--not even _half invented_; and that the machine of 1841
was not much more perfect.

On page 231 of the Reports of Juries for the Great London Exhibition,
and now in the Library of Congress, we find the following:

"It seems right," says Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., "to put on record Mr.
McCormick's own account of his progress, or some extracts at least, from
a statement written by him, at my request."--[Pusey.]

"My father was a farmer in the county of Rockbridge, State of Virginia,
United States. He made an experiment in cutting grain in the year 1816,
by a number of cylinders standing perpendicularly. Another experiment of
the same kind was made by my father in the harvest of 1831, which
satisfied my father to abandon it. Thereupon my attention was directed
to the subject, and the same harvest I invented and put in operation in
cutting late oats on the farm of John Steele, adjoining my father's,
those parts of my present Reaper called the platform, for receiving the
corn, a straight blade taking effect on the corn, supported by
stationary fingers over the edge, and a reel to gather the corn; which
last, however, I found had been used before, though not in the same
combination.

"Although these parts constituted the foundation of the present machine,
I found in practice innumerable difficulties, being limited also to a
few weeks each year, during the harvest, for experimenting, so that my
first patent for the Reaper was granted in June, 1834.

"During this interval, _I was often advised by my father and family to
abandon it, and pursue my regular business, as likely to be more
profitable, he having given me a farm_. [Italicised by C. H. McC.]

"No machines were sold until 1840, and I may say that they were not of
much practical value until the improvements of my second patent in 1845.

"These improvements consist in reversing the angle of the sickle teeth
alternately--the improved form of the fingers to hold up the corn,
etc.--an iron case to preserve the sickles from clogging--and a better
mode of separating the standing corn to be cut. Up to this period
nothing but loss of time and money resulted from my efforts. The sale
has since steadily increased, and is now more than a thousand
yearly."[2]

      [2] "The sale has since steadily increased, and is now more than a
      thousand yearly." This was written in 1851, and by a little
      calculation, we can readily estimate the "yearly" profits. In the
      Circuit Court of the United States, at Albany, in the suit brought
      by C. H. McCormick against Seymour & Morgan, in 1850, for an
      alleged infringement of patent, it was proved on the oath of O. H.
      Dormon, his partner, and also on the oath of H. A. Blakesley,
      their clerk, that these Reapers only cost $36 to $37 to
      manufacture. By the same evidence, the sales averaged from $110 to
      $120 each machine; leaving a clear profit of at least $73. C. H.
      McCormick first received a patent fee of $30 on each machine, then
      three-fourths of the remainder in the division of profits. It
      would thus appear, if these figures are correct--and they are all
      sworn to--that C. H. McCormick realized full fifty thousand
      dollars clear profit annually, with a margin of eight to ten
      thousand dollars for commissions and bad debts in addition.

It would be just as conclusive and reasonable for the _father_ of C. H.
McCormick to claim at this day priority of invention for his Reaper
invented in 1816, "by a number of cylinders standing perpendicularly;"
or for "the invention made by my father in the harvest of 1831, which
satisfied my father to abandon it." This authority, high and official
as all must admit it to be, [and italicised too, by the writer for a
particular object,] clearly proves that the invention of 1831 was an
abortion; for if the principle was effective to cut one acre of grain
properly, any man of common sense knows that it was equally so to cut
one thousand acres; but so complete was the failure that, "During this
interval"--between 1831 and 1834--"_I was often advised by my father and
family to abandon it, and pursue my regular business, as likely to be
more profitable, he having given me a farm._"

Again, "No machines were sold until 1840, and I may say that they were
not of much practical value until the improvements of my second patent
in 1845." What these improvements were we are also informed: "These
improvements consist in reversing the angle of the sickle teeth
alternately, the improved form of the fingers to hold up the corn,
etc.--an iron case to preserve the sickle from clogging, etc.--up to
this period nothing but loss of time and money resulted from my
efforts."

Nor is it at all surprising; for until improvements were added, invented
and long in successful operation by others, the machine would not work,
and consequently no one would buy.

[Sidenote: McCormick's Pen More Effective Than His Reaper]

This letter is the most perfect and complete estopper to priority of
invention--not only for 1831, but to 1841 inclusive, if not to 1845, that
could be _penned_. His _pen_ cuts a "cleaner swath," as we farmers say,
than ever did his Reaper; and this letter at least is certainly C. H.
McCormick's own "invention," which no one else can lay any claim to. Yet,
strange as it may appear, he contended before the Board of Extensions in
order to invalidate Hussey's Patent, that he invented a Reaping Machine
nine years before! So has perpetual motion been invented a hundred
times--in the estimation of the projectors; and by his own showing, and
on oath, he sold but two machines up to 1842--one of them conditionally
sold--being _eleven_ years after the alleged invention, and even they had
to be re-invented to make them work, or use the previous inventions of
others.

In this letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., C. H. McCormick admits that
the Reel "had been used before," yet he includes it in his patent of
1834.--Both the specifications and drawings in the Patent Office
conclusively establish the fact that James Ten Eyck _patented_ the reel
or "revolving rack," or "revolving frame" in 1825, used not only to
_gather_ the grain as all such devices are used, but by the knives
attached to it, also intended to _cut it off_.

[Sidenote: Priority of the Reel]

Could it be contended that because _rockers_ are attached to a chair
it is no longer a chair, or useful as a seat? Even "Mary McCormick,
the mother of Cyrus," and "Eliza H. Steele, of Steele's Tavern,
Virginia"--nay every woman and child in the country would tell you that
it was then a _rocking_ chair--just as much a seat as ever--and Ten
Eyck's was a Reel to all intents and purposes, but also a _cutting_ reel.
It does not require the mechanical tact and skill of Professor Page to
discover that "the revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as
its operation is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck,
patented November 2d, 1825." It is certain the reel was no "novelty,"
either in 1831 or 1834, when patented by C. H. McCormick; _he_ tells us
so himself; and it is most likely the father of C. H. McCormick also used
a reel for his "cylinders standing perpendicularly, in 1816," and also
for his other plan in 1831, and "which satisfied my father to abandon
it." And it is equally probable that most of the "fathers" and the sons,
who invented Reapers for a hundred years preceding the date of Hussey's
patent, used reels;--indeed the reel seemed to be considered a _Sine qua
non_ by many; most of the inventors we have any clear account of,
resorted to the reel.

Hussey also used the reel in 1833--of course the reel and seat in
combination--but only for a short period, as it was found quite
unnecessary--an actual incumbrance with _his_ cutting apparatus,
and soon laid it aside.

We will now examine another invention patented by C. H. McCormick, in
1847. We here assert and challenge a denial, that from 12 to 14 years
after the alleged invention of a Reaper by C. H. McCormick in 1831, and
from 9 to 12 years after the date of his patent in 1834 his _raker
walked_ by the side of his machine, while Hussey's raker _rode on the
machine as they always had done_ since his first machine that cut the
grain like "a thing of life" in Hamilton County, Ohio, in 1833. Yet, in
1847, C. H. McCormick takes out a patent for the _raker's seat_! this
_was_ a "novelty" and well worth a patent!

[Sidenote: The Raker's Seat]

In two trials of reaping machines by Hussey and McCormick in the same
fields in Virginia, in 1843, one at Hutchinson's, and the other on the
plantation of the late Senator Roane, at Tree Hill, near Richmond,
McCormick's raker _walked_ by the side of the machine, while Hussey's
_rode_ on the machine, in the same manner as he did just exactly ten
years before.

We have three letters from the late Hon. William H. Roane referring to
these trials, and ordering a machine from Hussey, after witnessing the
operation of both. Two of the letters he desired might not be published;
but says in one of them, "I have no objection to your stating publicly
that a _member_ of the committee who made the report last summer at
_Hutchinson's_, which was published a few days thereafter, witnessed a
fuller and fairer trial between the two machines, and has in consequence
ordered one of yours. * * * What I have said above of ---- is intended
only for your eye _confidentially_, to show you in part the character and
probable motives of the opposition your Reaper has met. Let what I say be
private, as I have a great objection to going into the newspapers. Should
you ever want it, you can have from me the strongest public testimonial
of my good opinion of your machine."

The third letter, giving this "testimonial," was published in the
American Farmer in January, 1844. As the Raker's Seat--the main feature
of C. H. McCormick's patent of 1847--comes fairly within the scope of
this enquiry as to priority of invention, we re-publish Senator Roane's
letter and also furnish other testimony on the subject.

    "_To the Editor of the American Farmer:_

    "As the question of _which is the best Reaping Machine_ is of
    no little importance to wheat growers, it is highly necessary that
    they be rightly informed of every fact which tends to decide the
    question. The trial which forms the subject of the following
    correspondence was looked forward to with great interest by
    farmers; such was the partial character of the trial, and the
    general terms of the committee's report, in which the particulars
    that led to the result were omitted, it cannot appear strange that
    the public should be in some degree misled with regard to the
    relative merits of the two machines. If my own interest was alone
    concerned, I would not thus far trespass on your columns, but you
    will doubtless agree with me, that it is due to wheat growers
    throughout the country that the views expressed by Mr. Roane, in
    connection with the committee's report, should be published as
    extensively as the report itself; I therefore solicit the
    insertion of the following correspondence in your paper.

    "Very respectfully,

    "OBED HUSSEY."

[Sidenote: Hussey Letter to Mr. Roane]

    "Baltimore, January 18th, 1844.

    _"To the Hon. William H. Roane:_

    "Dear Sir--You will remember that a trial took place on the farm
    of Mr. Hutchinson near Richmond, Va., in July last, between my
    reaping machine and Mr. McCormick's, at which trial you were one
    of a committee which gave the preference to Mr. McCormick's
    machine.

    "You will also recollect that the machine which I used at that
    time was a small one, and quite different from that which I used
    in your field a few days afterwards in a second trial between Mr.
    McCormick and myself.

    "As the first trial was made under circumstances unfavorable to
    myself, owing to the difficulties which prevented me from getting
    my best machine to the field on that day, and other impediments
    incidental to a stranger unprovided with a team, etc., and as no
    report was made of the second trial, you will oblige me by
    informing me what your impressions were after witnessing the
    second trial.

    "I would very gladly embrace the opportunity which the next
    harvest will afford of following up my experiments in wheat
    cutting in Virginia, but the new field opened to me in the
    _great west_ for cutting hemp, in which I was so successful
    last September, as will appear by the Louisville 'Journal' of that
    date, will claim my particular attention this year. I mention this
    to you lest it might appear that I had abandoned the field in
    Virginia by my non-appearance there in the next harvest.

    "Very respectfully yours, etc.,

    "OBED HUSSEY."

[Sidenote: Mr. Roane's Reply]

    "Tree Hill, January 23d, 1844.

    "Dear Sir:

    "I received a few days ago your letter of the 17th inst., on the
    subject of your reaping machine; you call my recollection to a
    trial between it and Mr. McCormick's reaper at Mr. Hutchinson's in
    July last, on which occasion I 'was one of a committee which gave
    the preference to Mr. McCormick's machine;' you also advert to a
    trial between these rival machines a few days subsequent, at this
    place, and request to know my impressions after this second trial.
    I presume from the fact of my having ordered one of your reapers
    for the ensuing harvest, that it is your purpose to publish this
    statement. Averse as I am to having my name in print on _this_, or
    any other occasion, I cannot with propriety decline a response to
    your inquiry. I had never seen or formed an idea of a reaping
    machine until I went to Hutchinson's--I was surprised and delighted
    with the performance of each of them, and fully resolved to own one
    of them by the _next_ harvest, but their performance that day left
    me in a state of doubt which I should select. The report spoke in
    terms of high praise of each machine, and I consented to its award
    that _on the whole_ Mr. McCormick's was preferable, merely because
    being the cheapest and requiring but two horses, it would best suit
    the majority of our farmers, who make small crops of wheat on _weak
    land_--for I doubted its capacity in _heavy_ grain. After this
    report was made I heard your complaint that you did not have a fair
    trial, because being unable to bring into the field your large
    improved Reaper, which was up the river, you were compelled to
    comply with your _engagement_ for the day, with a _small_ and
    _inferior_ machine, drawn by an indifferent and untutored team. Mr.
    Hutchinson's wheat was badly rusted, and therefore light. I had
    ready for the scythe a low ground field of heavy and well matured
    grain; partly to expedite my harvest work, and partly to renew the
    trial, that I might solve my doubts as to the merits of these
    machines, I succeeded in engaging them to be at Tree Hill on a
    named day. They both came agreeable to appointment, Mr. McCormick
    bringing the machine he used at Hutchinson's, and you bringing the
    one you could not on that occasion bring down the river. The day
    was fine, and both machines did their best, and had a very fair
    trial. My doubts were fully removed, and my mind convinced that for
    the heavy wheat we raise on our river low grounds, rich bottoms,
    etc., _your_ machine is superior to Mr. McCormick's, of which I
    still think highly. I accordingly ordered one of yours to be made
    for the approaching harvest.

    "I wish you all possible success in cutting hemp in the 'Great
    West.' It must be very desirable to cut that valuable plant instead
    of pulling it up by the roots, and I cannot doubt that your reaper
    has ample _power_ for the process.

    "Most respectfully, yours, etc.,

    "W. H. ROANE.

    "Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore."

"We are not advised at what precise period subsequent to 1843 and
previous to 1847 (when C. H. McCormick patented the raker's seat), that
he changed the arrangement of his wheels, etc., so as to admit a seat for
his raker without 'tipping up the machine' as was unavoidable previously.
From evidence deemed fully reliable, _he_ was not the first even on his
own machine, to provide a seat for the raker, "and all take a ride.' It
is laborious enough to test fully the endurance of the most powerful and
muscular man, to _ride_ and _rake_; but to _walk_ and _rake_ is even more
barbarous than the old time ball and chain to the leg of the felon. The
considerate and feeling farmer would certainly 'wait for the wagon' to be
better fixed before thus undertaking to reap his grain fields if himself
or his hands had to _ride_ in this sort of style.

"We have a letter from Isaac Irvine Hite, Esq., now of Clarke County,
Va., which throws some light on the subject; he says (italicised by the
writer):

"In 1842 my father, by my request, purchased for me of _C. H. McCormick_
and _Father_, a reaper at $110, which was _drawn_ by two horses, and it
was raked off to the right hand side by a _man on foot_. The father of C.
H. McCormick stated to me at the commencement of that harvest, that it
had been _nine years since they_ had first operated with it, in pretty
much the form it was then constructed. On a recent visit to Messrs.
McCormick, who then resided on the line between Augusta and Rockbridge
Counties in this State, the old gentleman stated to me that _he_ had been
at _odd_ times at work on the reaper for many years; and either he or his
son stated to me that C. H. McCormick had been _improving_, _changing_ or
_inventing_ various parts until they had (as they thought) perfected the
machine. * * * I disliked the labor _imposed on the hand who had to walk
and remove_ the wheat from a platform seven feet in width, and urged
Messrs. McCormick to attach another contrivance so as to enable the raker
to ride and perform his arduous task; the old gentleman contended that
that could never be accomplished, but that a self-operating appendage
could be constructed to remove the grain, but that would be uncertain,
and entirely unreliable. During my visit, he pointed out to me _one_ or
_more_ fixtures they had tried for the raker to ride on. I think one was
on one wheel, and the other on two.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hite Suggests a Seat]

I yet contended that it could be accomplished; if by no other means, by
changing the construction of the machine, and remarked to him, if I were
a mechanic, and understood the construction of the machine well enough
to venture to alter its parts, I was certain I could so arrange it, and
requested him to urge his son to make the effort; he replied that it
would be useless; that they had tried every imaginable way or plan
before placing the machine before the public, and that they regarded it
as an impossibility, successfully, and properly, in any other way than
on foot, and said it was necessary for the heads to be brought round to
the right, in which I fully agreed; but contended it could be done while
the raker was riding or standing in an erect position.

[Sidenote: McCormick Condemns]

After this unsatisfactory interview I returned home, and at the close of
the next wheat harvest I had a small carriage, about 3 feet by 3-1/2
feet, constructed on two wheels, and connected underneath the platform,
by means of shafts to the back part of the head of the machine; this
during the cutting of my oat crop answered every purpose, so far as the
raker was concerned, but there was a difficulty in turning. C. H.
McCormick came to see this combination sometime during the year, and
condemned it in toto. But by the next harvest I had it so constructed, as
to be drawn by an iron bar so shaped, appended and supported on the
underneath part of the carriage, as to admit of the machine turning in
any direction, and the carriage would follow just as the two hind wheels
of a wagon do; the carriage had a seat behind, and a thick, deep cushion
in front, for the raker to press his knees against while removing the
grain from the platform to his right hand, which he was enabled to do
with apparent ease with a _rake of peculiar shape_;--(it cannot be done
with a rake of ordinary shape).

[Sidenote: McCormick Adopts Mr. Hite's Suggestion]

The working of the first carriage was witnessed by many gentlemen who
approved of it; and the combination of the second carriage I applied for
a patent for. The model carriage can now be seen in the room of the
Patent Office, containing models of all rejected patents. After this, I
heard of McCormick making experiments at one of his Western factories--I
think it was at Chicago; and finally he addressed me _a letter,
stating he had changed the construction of his machine, and had it so
constructed that the raker could ride on the machine and remove the
grain_."

We think the foregoing letter--for it carries truth on its face--clearly
shows that the idea of "changing the construction of the machine," and
permit the raker to ride, did not originate with the McCormick's father
or son; for "they had tried every imaginable plan or way before placing
the machine before the public, and that they regarded it as an
impossibility for the wheat to be so removed regularly, successfully and
properly, in any other way except on foot."

At the trial referred to at Hutchinson's, and the late Senator Roane's
in 1843, it was demonstrated that a raker could ride and rake, and as
was also done by Hussey many years before, at various places, and
delivering the grain at back or side. But we have still better evidence
than the above--C. H. McCormick himself.

His Patent of 1847, covering some four or five folio pages, is altogether
to change "the construction of the machine," to admit of, and to patent
the raker's seat; the substance of the whole is comprised within the
following brief extract from the patent of 1847:

[Sidenote: McCormick's Patent for Raker's Seat]

"And the gearing which communicates motion to the crank is placed back
of the driving wheel, which is therefore subject to be clogged by sand,
dirt, straw, etc.--_and in consequence of the relative position of the
various parts, the attendant is obliged to walk on the ground by the
side of the machine, to rake the cut grain from the platform as it is
delivered and laid there by the reel_. These defects which have so
much retarded the introduction into practical and general use of Reaping
Machines, I have remedied by my improvements, the nature of which
consists in placing the driving wheels further back than heretofore, and
back of the gearing which communicates motion to the sickle, which is
placed in a line back of the axis of the driving wheel, the connexion
being formed, etc., and also bringing the driving wheel sufficiently far
back _to balance the frame of the machine with the raker on it_, to
make room for him to sit or stand on the frame," etc., etc.--"_which
cannot be done, if the raker walks by the side of the machine, as
heretofore_."

[Sidenote: Hussey Fourteen Years Ahead]

Now if C. H. McCormick's testimony in his own favor, can be considered
reliable, he certainly had not _invented_ a seat for his raker as late as
1845--and not long prior to 1847, when he patented it; and just _fourteen
years_ after Hussey had used it _every year_, successively. The raker's
seat therefore was just as _original_ an invention as the reel.

The "straight sickle blade," but cut one way only, and abandoned some 10
or 12 years after its conception in 1831, as he states, appears to be
the only original idea--properly belonging to whom it may--in the patent
of 1834. As to the "foundation" of the machine, viz:--the platform, cog
wheels, crank, etc., etc., they have been used by every projector in
reaping machines, for a century.

A machine exhibited at the World's Fair in London, by C. H. McCormick,
had the "straight sickle blade," but alternating the cuts every few
inches. With such a machine it is impracticable to cut grain, much less
grass, efficiently, divested of the reel. That plan has since been
changed to a much more efficient blade, the scolloped edged sickle. That
it was used in the Northwestern States by others several years previous
to its adoption by C. H. McCormick, we believe admits of just as little
doubt, as rests with the priority of invention of the Reel, Rakers-seat,
etc.

There is one other important feature, patented in 1845 and referred to in
the Pusey letter;--an "Iron case to preserve the sickles from clogging;"
these we will also take a look into after a while.

Obed Hussey, as appears by the evidence before us, made his first machine
in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he then resided, in the spring of 1833, and it
was patented the same year.

[Sidenote: The Hussey Principle]

His principle--the arrangement and construction of the Guards and
Knives--was precisely identical with those used by him at the present
day, except an improvement patented in 1847, leaving openings at the
back end of the slot in the guards for the escape of particles of straw
or grass that might get in between the blades and guards.

It was communicated at the time by letter with a diagram to a personal
friend now living, and of the highest respectability, from whom we have
a certificate, and copy of the drawing. The knives or cutters, for lack
of more suitable materials were made out of hand saw blades cut into
suitable form, and riveted to a bar, vibrating through an opening or
slot in the guards.

[Sidenote: An Early Experiment]

Judge Foster, residing within a few miles of the city, and to whom he
applied, kindly offered him every facility to test the machine by cutting
grain, ripe and unripe, being himself greatly interested in its success.
When taken to the field, a considerable number of persons were attracted
to the spot; and rather to the discomfiture of the inventor, for it may
well be supposed it was an anxious moment to him, and he desired _no
witnesses to his failure_. The machine was started; but owing to some
part giving away, or some slight defect not apparent until then, it
failed to work satisfactorily. One burley fellow present picked up a
cradle, and, swinging it with an air of great exultation, exclaimed,
"this is the machine to cut the wheat!"

After the jeers and merriment of the crowd had somewhat subsided, the
inventor remedied the defect, and assisted by the laborers present--the
horses having been removed--pulled the machine to the top of an adjacent
hill; when alone, he drew the machine down the hill, and through the
standing grain, when it cut every head clean in its track!

The _same_ machine was directly afterwards exhibited before the Hamilton
County Agricultural Society near Carthage, on the 2nd of July, 1833. Of
its operation and success, the following statements, and certificates,
now in our possession, sufficiently testify. Doctor Wallace as well as
some others of the gentlemen, are living witnesses of what is here
stated.

[Sidenote: Wallace Testimonial]

    Cincinnati, November 20th, 1833.

    This may certify that I was present on the 2nd day of July near
    Carthage, in this county, at an experimental trial with a machine
    invented by Mr. Obed Hussey for cutting grain. The operation was
    performed on a field of wheat. The machine was found to cut the
    wheat clean, and with great rapidity. But owing to its having been
    imperfectly made, being only constructed for the experiment, some
    parts of _wood_ which should have been made of iron, and in
    consequence frequently getting some parts out of order, a correct
    estimate of the quantity of work it would perform in a given time
    could not be made. One point was, however, satisfactorily
    established, that the principle upon which the machine is
    constructed will operate; and when well built will be an important
    improvement, and greatly facilitate the harvesting of grain. I
    would also remark that the horses moving the machine were walked,
    and trotted, and it was found to cut best with the greatest
    velocity.

    C. D. WALLACE,
    Secretary of the Hamilton County Agricultural Society.

[Sidenote: Exceeded Expectations]

    We, the undersigned, witnessed the exhibition of Mr. O. Hussey's
    Machine for cutting grain alluded to by Dr. Wallace, and do fully
    concur with his statement of its performance. We would further add,
    that notwithstanding its temporary construction, its performance far
    exceeded our expectations. Cutting the grain clean and rapidly, and
    leaving it in good order for binding. We are of the opinion that the
    machine is capable of being propelled at the rate of five miles the
    hour, and do good work. The machine was worked when the cutters were
    both in a sharp and a dull condition, and no difference could be
    perceived in its execution.

    (Signed) "G. A. MAYHEW,
             T. R. SEBRING,
             A. CASTNER,
             JACOB WHITE,
             H. B. COFFIN,
             C. F. COFFIN,
             S. W. FOLGER,
             T. B. COFFIN,
             WM. PADDOCK."

There are several other certificates equally conclusive and satisfactory;
but we will only copy in addition to the foregoing, a short piece from
the _Farmer and Mechanic_, issued July 3d, 1833, in Cincinnati, as
follows:

"Several members of the Agricultural Society on last Wednesday attended
in Carthage to see a machine for cutting wheat by horse power, in
operation. It was propelled by two horses, and cut as fast as eight
persons could conveniently bind, doing the cutting neatly.

"This machine is the invention of Mr. O. Hussey, and will no doubt prove
a useful addition to our agricultural implements. Mr. J. C. Ludlow
suggested that it would be good economy of time and labor to take a
threshing machine into the field and thresh out the grain as it is
reaped, thereby saving the binding and hauling to the barn or stack. We
think the suggestion a good one."

[Sidenote: The Problem Solved]

Here, then, was the problem solved--the great discovery made that had
puzzled the brains of hundreds if not of thousands, and for centuries.
No one we fearlessly assert had ever succeeded so completely and
satisfactorily, and with so simple and practical a machine.

Some visited the exhibition determined to condemn as they afterwards
acknowledged, deeming the thing impracticable; but all were convinced;
for the demonstration was of that character which left no room for doubt
or cavil in the minds of any.

[Sidenote: A Great Triumph]

It was indeed a triumph,--not perhaps entirely unexpected to the
inventor--but neither he, nor any one else at that early day, could
foresee the wonderful changes ultimately to be effected, and the
world-wide renown to be conferred on the inventor as the result of this
experiment; one that was certain to immortalize his name as a pioneer
and benefactor in the most useful and peaceful pursuits in life. It was
too, the dawn of a brighter day to the toiling husbandman, by lightening
his labors, and adding to his comfort and independence; only
circumscribed in its beneficial influence by the bounds of civilization.

Some may possibly suppose that we view the invention in too glowing
colors; but we have yet to meet with the farmer who owned a good reaping
and mowing machine that would dispense with its advantages for twice the
cost of the implement, and again be compelled to resort to the sickle,
the cradle, and the scythe; for of a truth it completely supersedes all
three in competent hands and with fair usage, in both the grain and
grass crops.

[Sidenote: No Competitors Until 1841]

It is difficult to confine our narrative to its intended brief limits and
select from the mass of evidence on hand as to the uninterrupted success
off Hussey's invaluable invention from that day to the present--now
twenty-one years. We will therefore only select a single and short
account of each year; until about 1840 or '42; not long after which a few
other inventors came before the public. There was, however, no competitor
in the field from 1833 to 1841 or 1842, either in Europe or America, so
far as we can ascertain, that did more than make a few occasional trials;
none attracted public attention, or were successful and efficient
machines even in the estimation of the projectors themselves. The
evidence proves it, and it is corroborated by our own personal knowledge,
having been constantly engaged in Agricultural and Mechanical pursuits
for more than thirty years--and, as we believe, familiar with most of the
important improvements of the age;--of all in fact, directly connected
with agriculture in its labor saving implements, of any notoriety.

[Sidenote: No Reaping Machine Without Hussey Principle]

Many alleged improvements have been made in the Reaper in the past ten
or twelve years; and many more still within half that period. How far
they are new inventions, and actual _improvements_, we can better
judge by examining Hussey's patent; for it describes the cutting
apparatus clearly and minutely, and which in fact is the whole
thing,--the "one thing needful" to success. For the use of wheels, or a
system of gearing to all kinds of motive machinery is coeval with the
first dawn of mechanical science. How ancient we know not, for the
Prophets of old spoke of "wheels within wheels" near three thousand
years ago; and it is very certain the hand of man, unaided by wheels and
machinery, never erected the vast Pyramids and other structures of
antiquity. We do not believe there is a single Reaping and Mowing
machine in successful operation on this continent that is not mainly
indebted to Hussey's invention in the cutting apparatus, for its
success: deprive them of this essential feature--disrobe them of their
borrowed plumes, and their success would be like the flight of the
eagle, suddenly bereft of his pinions,--he must fall; and the machines
would stand still, for not a farmer in the land would use them.

[Sidenote: The Guards]

As previously remarked, O. Hussey's first patent is dated in 1833. We
omit the more general description of the machine, and copy only what
embraces the most important features, the guards and knives; also an
extract from his improvement patented in 1847, to obviate choking in the
guards:

"On the front edge of the platform is fixed the cutting or reaping
apparatus, which is constructed in the following manner: A series of
iron spikes, and which I will call _guards_, are fixed permanently
to the platform, and extend seven or eight inches, more or less, beyond
the edge of the platform, parallel to each other, horizontal, and
pointing forward. These guards are about three inches apart, of a
suitable size, say three-quarters of an inch square, more or less, at
the base, and lessening towards the points. The guards are formed of a
top and bottom piece, joined at the point and near the back, being
nearly parallel, and about one-eighth of an inch apart, forming a
horizontal mortice or slit through the guard; these mortices being on a
line with each other, form a continued range of openings or slits
through the guards. The first guard is placed on the rear of the right
wheel, and the last at the extreme end of the platform, and the
intermediate guards at equal distances from each other, and three inches
apart, more or less, from center to center.

[Illustration: Diagram Showing Arrangement of Guards and Knives]

[Sidenote: The Cutter]

"The cutter or saw (f) is formed of thin triangular plates of steel
fastened to a straight _flat rod_, (g) of steel, iron or wood, one inch
and a half wide; these steel plates are arranged side by side, forming a
kind of saw with teeth three inches at the base, and four and a half
inches long, more or less, sharp on both sides, and terminating nearly in
a point. The saw is then passed through all the guards in the aforesaid
range of mortices, the size of the mortice being suited to receive the
saw with the teeth pointing forward; observing always that the points of
the saw teeth should correspond with the center of the guards. One end of
the saw is connected with a pitman moved by a crank, and receiving its
motion from the main axis, by one or two sets of cog wheels. The
vibration of this crank must be equal to the distances of the centers of
the guards, or the points of the saw teeth, or thereabouts, so when the
machine is in motion, the point of each saw tooth may pass from center to
center of the guards on each side of the same tooth at every vibration of
the crank; if the main wheels are three feet four inches in diameter,
they should in one revolution give the crank sixteen vibrations, more or
less; the saw teeth should play clear of the guards, both above and
below. * * *

[Sidenote: Operation]

"The power is given by locking the wheels to the main axis, the machine
has one square wheel box, the other round and locked at pleasure. If the
power should be wanted, one, two, or more horses are attached and driven
on the stubble before the machine, the right wheel running near the
standing grain, the platform with the saw in its front edge extends on
the right, at right angles with the direction of the horses, with the
guards and saw teeth presented to the standing grain--when the machine
moves forward, the saw moves with the teeth endwise and horizontal, the
grain or grass is brought between the guards, the saw teeth in passing
through the guards, cut the stalk while held both above and below the
saw--the butts of the grain receive an impulse forward by the motion of
the machine while in the act of being cut, which causes the heads of the
grain to fall directly backwards on the platform--in this manner the
platform receives the grain until a sufficient quantity is collected to
make one or more bundles, according to the pleasure of the operator,
then it is deposited with a proper instrument by the operator, _who
may ride on the machine_."

Here follows the dimensions of a machine suited to two horses, which is
only copied so far as refers to the cutting apparatus, viz: "The back of
the saw may be from one inch to one and one-half inches wide, and from
three-sixteenths to one-quarter of an inch thick; and the steel plates
for the teeth should be about one-tenth of an inch thick; one end of the
mortice in the guard should be fitted to receive the back of the saw, so
that the bearing may be on the back of the saw only."

[Illustration: Gearing of Hussey's Early Reapers.]

[Sidenote: The Four Essentials]

"In this machine the following points are claimed as new and original:
1st. The straight horizontal saw, with the teeth sharp on their two
sides for cutting grain. 2d. The guards forming double bearers above and
below the saw, whereby the cutting is made sure, whether with a sharp or
dull edge, the guards at the same time protecting the saw from rocks or
stones, or other large substances it may meet with. 3d. The peculiar
construction that the saw teeth may run free, whereby the necessary
pressure and consequent friction of two corresponding edges cutting
together, as on the principle of scissors, is entirely avoided. 4th. The
peculiar arrangement by which the horses are made to go before the
machine, being more natural, and greatly facilitating the use of the
machine, and the general arrangement of the points as above described.

"In cutting grass, the platform is reduced in width, and the grass falls
on the ground as it is cut."

In the improvement of the guards patented in 1847, the claim states: "I
accordingly claim the opening above the blades A, fig. 3, and at D, fig.
1, in combination with vibrating blades. I also claim the particular
application of the flush edge at the fork of the blades, for the purpose
described.

"The end and design of the improvements above claimed is to prevent the
blades choking."

[Sidenote: McCormick Twelve Years Late]

_En passant_, we would ask any intelligent and candid farmer or mechanic
who has examined a successful reaper, to compare the foregoing plain
specifications which all can understand, with the cutting apparatus of
the most successful modern machine. And we would especially desire him to
compare them in principle with the "improved form of fingers to hold up
the corn, and an iron case to preserve the sickles from clogging;" not
the alleged invention of 1831, by C. H. McCormick, and abandoned from
1840 to 1843, but the claims patented by him in 1845 [as stated in the
letter to Philip Pusey, M. P.], twelve years after the date of Hussey's
patent, and twelve years after his most complete and uninterrupted
success in cutting both grain and grass. In fact, there was no year from
and including 1833 up to 1854, a period of 21 years the past harvest,
that we have not the most positive and conclusive evidence of the success
of Hussey's reaper; in numerous cases the same machines had cut from 500
to 800, and even one thousand acres; in one instance, the same machine
was used for fourteen harvests, or as many years, successively and
successfully.

[Sidenote: Canfield Testimonial]

We have given some of the evidence for 1833. For 1834 we annex two
letters giving an account of the two machines made this year, one in
Illinois, and the other in New York, viz:

    "Spring Creek, Sangamon Co., Ill.,
    "October 1st, 1854.

    "_Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore:_

    "Dear Sir:--Your favor of August 10th came to hand a few days
    since. The reason was, it lay at Berlin (formerly Island Grove
    Post-office) and my Post-office address is Springfield, the only
    place where I call for letters.

    "In answer to your query, how your Reaping Machine worked in 1834,
    I have to say that it cut about sixteen acres of wheat for me on
    my farm; that it did the work in first rate style; according to my
    best recollection, as well as any of the machines that have since
    been introduced. The only objection I recollect being made, was,
    that when the straw was wet, or there was much green grass among
    the wheat, the blades would choke. You certainly demonstrated in
    1834 the practicability of cutting grain or grass with horse-power;
    and all the machines since introduced seem to have copied your machine
    in all its essential features.

    "I am respectfully yours,

    "JOHN E. CANFIELD."

The next letter we copy from the _Genesee Farmer_ of December 6th, 1834.
The reader will readily perceive that the author, William C. Dwight, knew
how to handle the pen as well as the plow, and equally well to work the
reaper, being a practical farmer. But we are pained to add that he lost
his life by the fatal railroad accident at Norwalk, Ct., about a year
since.

From the Genesee Farmer, December 6, 1834.

    "_To the Editor of the Genesee Farmer:_

    "I wrote you last May that Mr. _Hussey_, the inventor of a
    machine for harvesting wheat, had left in this village one of his
    machines for the purpose of giving our farmers an opportunity to
    test its value, and I promised to write you further about it when
    it had been put to use. For many reasons which will not interest
    either yourself or the public, the matter has been delayed till
    the first rainy day, after my fall work was out of the way, should
    give leisure to remember and fulfill my promise.

    "The machine has been fully tried, and I am gratified to be able
    to say that it has fully succeeded; hundreds of farmers from the
    different towns of this and the adjoining counties have witnessed
    its operations, and all have not only expressed their confidence
    in its success, but their gratification in the perfection of the
    work.

    "As every inquirer asks the same series of questions, I presume
    your readers will have a like course of thought, and wish for
    satisfaction in the same particulars. To give them this, I will
    write them in their order, and give the answers:

    "Does the machine make clean work?

    "It saves all the grain. To use the language of a gratified
    looker-on, an old and experienced farmer, 'it cheats the hogs.'[3]

      [3] The hogs are the gleaners in this section of country.

    "Does the machine expedite the work?

    "What the machine is capable of accomplishing, we who have used it
    can hardly say, as we had no field in fit order, large enough for
    a fair trial through a whole day; and can only say what it has
    done. Five acres of heavy wheat, on the Genesee flats, were
    harvested in two hours and a quarter.

    "In what condition is the wheat left, and how is the work done
    where the wheat is lodged?

    "The machine leaves the wheat in gavels large enough for a sheaf,
    and where grain stands well enough to make fair work with the
    cradle, it leaves the straw in as good condition to bind as the
    gavels of a good reaper. Whether the grain stands or is lodged is
    of little consequence, except as to the appearance of the sheaf,
    and the necessity of saving more straw, when lodged, than is
    desirable. The condition of the sheaf when the grain is lodged
    depends much upon the adroitness of the raker.

    "What number of hands, and what strength of team is necessary to
    manage the machine advantageously?

    "Two men, one to drive the team and the other to rake off the
    wheat, and two horses, work the machine; but when the grain is
    heavy, or the land mellow, a change of horses is necessary, as the
    gait of the horses is too rapid to admit of heavy draft. The
    horses go at the rate of four to five miles an hour, and when the
    growth of straw is not heavy a fair trot of the team is not too
    much.

    "Is the machine liable to derangement and destruction from its own
    motion?

    "This is a question which cannot be so directly answered as the
    others. We have only used the machine to cut about fifty acres,
    and have had no trouble; judging from appearances so far, should
    say it was as little subject to this evil as any machinery
    whatever. The wear upon the cutting part being so little as to
    require not more than fifteen minutes sharpening in a day; there
    is no loss of time on this score.

    "Is the sheaf a good one to thresh?

    "The man who has fed the threshing machine with the grain of
    twenty acres cut by this machine, says the sheaves are much better
    than those of cradled grain, and quite as good as those of a
    reaper.

    "There is one more advantage beyond ordinary inquiries, of
    consequence, where so much grain is raised as in this valley; be
    the grain ever so ripe, there is no waste of grain by any
    agitation of the straw, and all the waste which can take place
    must arise from the handling and shaking in binding.

    "I am yours, etc.,

    "WM. C. DWIGHT.

    "Moscow, Livingston Co., N. Y., Nov. 14, 1834.

    "N. B.--The machine we used was intended only for upland, but by
    some little alterations and additions we used it with equal facility
    on all kinds of soil; and it can be used on any farm so clean from
    stumps and stones as not to endanger the blocking the wheels."

The following letter is evidence for 1835, and also refers to the
originality of the invention by O. Hussey.

    "Palmyra, Mo., Aug. 14, 1854.

    "Friend Hussey--Yours duly received. As to the machines sent by
    you (ordered some two years since) they both worked well.

    "Before you had invented your machine in 1831 or 1832, your
    attention was drawn to a mode of cutting grain, hemp and grass and
    you told me you thought you could invent such a machine to be
    drawn by horses; and after you had returned to Cincinnati from
    Laurenceburg you wrote me a letter in '32 or at the furthest in
    '33 (for I left Indiana 2nd Oct., 1833) with a draft and
    description of a plan for cutting grain. The draft was thus (here
    follows a diagram of the cutting apparatus exactly as described by
    the patent) and the description was, that these knives were to
    work by the motion of the wheels, being a perfect description of
    the invented principle.

    "As soon as I saw the plan, I was satisfied of its success and
    wrote to you that there was no doubt of the success of your
    machine; that it was astonishing the world had so many thousand
    years been confined to the sickle when so obvious a mode of
    cutting grain and grass existed; and shortly after you obtained a
    patent for the machine.

    "On the 6th July, 1835, you brought to Palmyra two of your
    machines, and they were put in operation near this place--one in a
    meadow between here and Philadelphia, and one in the heavy grass
    in Marion City bottom.[4] The machines did cut well. I was the
    editor of the _Missouri Courier_, from the month of November,
    1833, until 1838, and brought your machine before the public; it
    excited much attention, and its performance was highly
    satisfactory. The results of the trials were published in the
    paper by me in August or September, 1835. I knew of the capacity
    of the machine, and that it did so execute in the bottom three
    acres an hour. In this I cannot be mistaken, for I felt at the
    time the deepest interest in the success of the machine. Mr.
    McElroy is dead, where you boarded, and also Samuel Muldrow and
    James Muldrow. Still I will inquire if any persons can be found
    who were present.

      [4] Both of these machines were sold to Wm. Muldrow, Agent, of
      Marion College, Marion County, Mo.

    "I know the results, and recollect distinctly the reception the
    machines met with, and the prices, to wit, $150 each. Muldrow
    bought another for $500--which was a whirling wheel. You recollect
    it; it never run any. Yours, I know it was said then, would cut
    off brush large enough for a hoop-hole. Court is now in session,
    but as soon as I can ascertain the witnesses (at the exhibition) I
    will write you further. But my recollection is distinct, from the
    relations existing between us, my interest in machinery generally,
    and my position as editor of the only paper of this section of
    country.

    "As ever, your friend,

    "EDWIN G. PRATT."

[Sidenote: Mode of Transportation]

In 1836 O. Hussey visited Maryland at the written solicitation of the
Board of Trustees of _The Maryland Agricultural Society_, for the Eastern
Shore. The fame of his reaping exploits in the State of New York, and the
far West, had reached the East; though with something like a "snail's
pace." We had not then the Magnetic Telegraph, which with lightning speed
enables the East to _talk_ with the West; nor even the "iron horse," by
whose speed and power, the reaper that cut a large crop of wheat in
Maryland, could within the same week cut another equally large in the
valley of the Mississippi; but it then required some two to three _years_
to prepare the public mind for the reception of the machine here; and
owing to the limited means of the inventor, the transportation from place
to place was often done by a single horse; accompanied by the inventor
foot-sore and weary from walking hundreds of miles!

[Sidenote: An Inventor's Difficulties]

The annexed certificate was given, published, and widely circulated
after a full trial of the machine, in cutting more than two hundred
acres, and by large farmers and practical men, known throughout the
State. Comment is unnecessary on such a paper; but we feel bound to
state that it was mainly owing to the exertions of the liberal public
spirited gentlemen, the last, though not the least of the signers, Gen.
Tench Tilghman, that the Reaper was then introduced into this State. He
was the early and steadfast friend of the Patentee, and to the cause of
agricultural improvement in our State. Strange as it may appear to many
at the present day, and notwithstanding these demonstrations in Ohio,
Illinois, New York, Missouri and Maryland, which did not admit of cavil
or doubt as to the entire efficiency and success of Hussey's reaper,
scarcely a farmer could be found ready and willing to take hold of it,
and aid the inventor in introducing it into use. But farmers as a class
are proverbially cautious, and disinclined to change from established
customs and usages; it often requires "line upon line and precept upon
precept," aided, too, by almost a free gift of the article, to induce
them even to give a new agricultural implement a fair trial,--a plough,
for instance, that will do better work, with a fourth to a third less
draught; the old and nearly worn out implement "does well enough." Gen.
T. was, we believe, the first farmer in Maryland to use and purchase a
reaping machine; and by so doing, to aid the inventive genius and talent
of his countrymen, and also at the same time greatly to benefit the
interest of his brother farmers. It avails little to the inventor, or
the public, how valuable his improvement may be,--for in nine cases out
of ten the inventor is limited in means,--if none can be found who are
both able and willing to lend a helping hand to modest merit; for true
genius is ever modest; and unfortunately the term is too often
synonymous with penury and want.

[Sidenote: The Inventor's Rewards]

Very few of the really valuable inventions inure to the benefit of the
inventors,--even to a tithe of the profits that are occasionally
realized. His necessities often compel him to a forced sale of his patent
right to some capitalist who has the tact to turn other men's wits to his
own advantage; or the _Public_,--which simply means other capitalists of
another description, who possess little or no inventive genius
themselves, and just about as much principle as genius--seize upon the
invention, and often in spite of law, justice, or right, reap the reward
justly due to another.

This, however, is a digression for which we beg the reader's pardon; but
we could not let the occasion pass without rendering this honest tribute
to the public spirited farmer, who had the discernment to perceive its
merits, and the liberality to aid its introduction, of one of the most
valuable improvements of this, or any age.

The following three letters not only embrace the year 1837, but are
equally good evidence from that period to the present, 1854. As they are
short, and to the point, we use them all. The very appropriate and just
remarks of Col. Hughes as regards the rights, and what is due to
inventive talent, we most cordially respond to; as must every right
minded and disinterested reader. He refers to Col. Edw. Lloyd of "Wye
House" as the largest wheat grower in Maryland; we much doubt if he is
not the largest in the Union. Several years since, he informed us that
his average crop of wheat was from 33 to 35 thousand bushels; and a year
or two ago we learned that the crop exceeded forty thousand bushels. He
now, and for many years past has used Hussey's Reaper exclusively. More
satisfactory and conclusive evidence cannot be given, or desired, than
is afforded in these three letters, of the early use, and long proved
efficiency of the invention.

    "Hornewood, E. Shore, Md.,
    "August 22, '54.

    "Dear Sir:--In reply to your enquiry whether I recollect the time,
    and the success of your reaping machine at my father's in 1837, I
    answer that I do perfectly; and also seeing it in operation in
    company with my friend, Mr. J. H. Luckett, of Balto., at Col. H.
    L. Edmondson's of Talbot Co. the same season.

    "My father expressed himself highly satisfied with the performance
    of the reaper, as did other gentlemen who saw it in operation at
    Cheston. So well convinced was my father of the value of the
    machine, that he offered you a considerable advance per acre on
    your charge for cutting, to remain and reap his two fields, say
    125 to 130 acres, which you declined, owing to prior engagements.
    At an early date after this trial, my father secured one of your
    reapers, and the farm has since never been without.

    "My brother, Dr. DeCourcy, has now one which did its work most
    excellently well this past harvest, and without any stoppage. With
    some trivial repairs, it has been in successful use nearly ten
    years.

    "Wishing you every possible success with your reaper, for which
    the agricultural community owe you a heavy debt,

    "I am respectfully yours,

    "N. H. ROZIER DE COURCEY."


    "Baltimore,
    "October 17th, 1854.

    "_To Obed Hussey, Esq.:_

    "Sir--In the harvest of 1837 I saw one of your Reapers in operation
    in my neighborhood [West River, Anne Arundel Co., Md.] in charge of
    the Hon. John C. Weems, who I believe was the owner of it; and was
    so much pleased with its performance that I ordered one from you in
    the following year, 1838, which you set in motion for me. It worked
    most admirably, and fully met my expectations; _as it has done from
    that early period to the present day_.

    "In a loose way, I estimated that in the saving of labor, and grain
    from shattering, it nearly or quite paid for itself the first
    harvest. Since then the machine has been much improved.

    "Up to the time I purchased, very few had been used in this State.
    The first, as I have always understood, was bought by that
    intelligent and enterprising farmer, Gen. Tench Tilghman, of
    Oxford, Talbot County. In 1838, Col. Edward Lloyd, of 'Wye,' Talbot
    Co., the largest wheat grower in Maryland, and myself, as above
    mentioned, availed ourselves of your invention; but I did not hear
    of any other orders for it in this State. It came, like most other
    agricultural implements, slowly into use; and I fear has not fairly
    compensated you for the labor and ingenuity bestowed upon it. This,
    however, is too often the fate of discoverers and inventors; and
    others reap the fruits of their toil and genius. I have long
    thought that governments were unjust to inventors; and could never
    understand why a man has not the same right of property to a
    machine conceived in his head, and constructed by his hands, as to
    that acquired in any other manner. The same that a farmer has to
    the lands he owns.

    "Very respectfully, y'r ob't serv't,

    "GEO. W. HUGHES."


    "Oxford, Md.,
    "Sept. 22d, 1854.

    "_Mr. Obed Hussey:_

    "Dear Sir:--I recently received from the Commissioner of Patents
    the Report on Mechanics for 1853, and have examined with much
    interest the descriptions of what claim to be improvements in the
    Reaping Machine.

    "I was rather surprised to find that so many of then were almost
    identical with the notions which were tried and rejected during
    the season you spent with me nearly twenty years ago; when for the
    first time (I believe) a reaper was used throughout our entire
    harvest, on a farm as large as six hundred acres.

    "You had just then arrived from Cincinnati with two machines--one
    a reaper, and the other a reaper and mower.

    "They were exhibited publicly at Oxford and Easton, and their
    operation on wheat gave entire satisfaction. The work throughout
    the harvest was equally well done; the only objection being the
    delay caused by repairing the machinery, a difficulty common to
    all new machines of much power at that period.

    "Since then I have used one or more reapers every year, and have
    watched with much interest the progress of their improvement. I
    have examined most of those which have the best reputation, and do
    not believe there is a single one in which the cutting principle
    has not been copied from yours.

    "In attempting to avoid an infringement of your patent, variations
    have been made either in the cutting apparatus, or the driving
    machinery, by which they have been made more complicated and less
    efficient. Burrall's, which approaches nearest to yours in
    simplicity and efficiency, is so close a copy that I do not see
    how the courts could refuse an injunction to prohibit the use of
    it. The only material difference is the attempt at a side delivery
    which was tried by you on your first machine, and proved an entire
    failure.

[Sidenote: The Farmers' Debt to Mr. Hussey]

    "Believing sincerely that the farmers of the U.S. owe you a debt
    of gratitude, which a regard for themselves should prompt them to
    pay, and understanding that attempts have been made to question
    even the priority of your invention, I send you a volume of the
    _Genesee Farmer_ published in 1834, which will show the
    opinion entertained at that time by the farmers of that celebrated
    wheat growing region, both as to the efficiency and priority of
    your reaper.

    "Your ob't serv't,

    "TENCH TILGHMAN."

[Sidenote: Conclusive Evidence]

As we have already much exceeded the intended limits of the narrative,
we might, perhaps, with propriety, here rest the enquiry, having, as we
think, satisfactorily shown, and by evidence that cannot be disproved:
first, that for a period of nine or ten years after the alleged
invention of the reaper by C. H. McCormick in 1831 he did not sell a
single machine; nor could he establish by all the evidence adduced
before the Board of Extensions, in 1848, that prior to 1840 or 1841 was
his reaper in any degree an effective or practical machine; for as he
himself states in the letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., it was not
until very material alterations--all essential it may be said--were
made, some six or eight years after the date of the patent, could the
machine be made to work even tolerably well. Indeed, he states, "I may
say they were not of much practical value, until the improvements of my
second patent in 1845," being eleven years after the date of the patent,
and fourteen years after the alleged invention in 1831.

On the other hand we have shown by as good and respectable testimony as
can be had in any cause, that from 1833 to 1854, a period of twenty-one
years, Hussey's invention was most efficient and satisfactory, _every
year_; not by cutting a patch of the fraction of an acre, but by
reaping hundreds, nay thousands of acres annually, by the few machines
placed in the hands of the farmers from 1833 to 1840.

As, however, we have given no direct evidence from Delaware, or
Virginia, none from North Carolina, and but one from New York, we annex
a few short testimonials from each, that embrace the period from 1838 to
1845; and with a few more of the same respectable character up to 1853,
both in this country and in England, we will leave the decision of the
question to the intelligent reader. We will, however, call the reader's
attention to the concluding paragraph of Maj. J. Jones' letter, from
Delaware--one of the smallest States, but containing as large a
proportion of noble minded, talented men, and as good practical farmers,
as any in the Union.[5]

      [5] It is reported of one of her sons, that during the struggle
      for Independence, when a Delegate to the Convention from one of the
      largest and most powerful Colonies was ready to quail and almost
      despair of success in the unequal contest, he was encouraged and
      cheered on by a member from little Delaware; and told that when he
      found his Colony likely to be overrun by the enemy, to call on
      Delaware for aid--she would lend a helping hand.

It will be perceived that a reaper sold in 1838 to the St. George's and
Appoquinomick Agricultural Society had, after subsequently coming into
the possession of Col. Vandergrift, and prior to 1845, "cut about
_seven hundred acres_ of his grain," and "was then in good repair"!
We wish it was in our power to state how many times seven hundred acres
this single machine had reaped since 1838.

[Sidenote: An Important Testimonial from Delaware]

    "Wheatland, Del.,
    "July 21, 1845.

    "_Mr. Hussey:_

    "Dear Sir:--I have just finished cutting my oats; I finished
    cutting my wheat on the 28th of June, having cut over 160 acres,
    excepting what was cut by a cradle in opening tracks for the
    horses and rounding the corners so that the machine might sweep
    round without loss of time in turning, which it did with ease and
    certainty, cutting more than twenty acres a day on an average. A
    part of the wheat was so heavy as to require three active shockers
    to keep up with the cutting; the whole cost of all necessary
    repairs 31-1/4 cents for the harvest.

    "Of the two machines which I purchased of you I used the large
    one, having sold the small one to Richard Millwood, who rents the
    farm of Dr. Noble. Strange as it may appear, I could find no
    _landholder_ in the vicinity who had enterprise enough to
    risk the purchase of that machine until they could see it work;
    but after the performance was once witnessed, the impression it
    made was such as to justify me in ordering you to have ten ready
    by next harvest for New Castle County, Del. Mr. Millwood's wheat
    was very heavy, one measured acre having sixty dozen sheaves upon
    it, and the whole cutting time on the forty acre field was but two
    days, making for the small machine a full average of twenty acres
    per day, without any repairing or accident. None of the hands who
    worked it had ever seen such a machine before those you sent to
    me. My crop has not all passed through the half bushel yet, but it
    will fall but little short of 3,000 bushels--expect it will all be
    in market to-morrow.

    "In conversation with Col. Vandergrift, the present owner of the
    Reaper you sold to the St. George and Appoquinomick Agricultural
    Society, in 1838, he told me that he had cut about 700 acres of
    wheat and oats with it since he owned it, and up to that time the
    cost of repairs had been $1.25 for every hundred acres cut. It was
    then in good repair.

    "Yours,

    "JOHN JONES."


    "Jefferson County, Va.,
    "August 9th, 1845.

    "_To Mr. Obed Hussey:_

    "Dear Sir:--We, the undersigned, having used your reaping machine
    during the recent harvest in cutting our respective crops, take
    great pleasure in tendering to you this voluntary testimonial of
    the very high estimation in which we hold your invention. We have
    now tried your machines fully and fairly, and we are unanimous in
    the conclusion that in every case they have borne the test in a
    manner which has excited our highest admiration of their merits.
    We were particularly pleased with their work in lodged grain; they
    cut and gather every straw with the utmost ease, and the only
    fault at all that we have had to find with them was that they did
    not cut wet grain with facility; this single defect, however, we
    are pleased to perceive you have completely remedied with the late
    improvement (with open guards to the knives, etc.) which the most
    of us saw at work in Mr. Wm. Butler's field cut wet grain and
    green oats as well as could possibly be desired--it will also cut
    timothy and clover--so that now we have no hesitation in
    recommending your reaper, as we hereby most cordially do, to our
    brother farmers, as the most complete and efficient in
    agricultural operations, and as one which, whilst from its simple
    and substantial construction, is not liable to be broken or to get
    out of order, will at the same time save its owner the first year
    more than its original cost.

    "WM. BUTLER,
    J. H. TAYLOR,
    W. SHORTT,
    JOSEPH M'MURRAN,
    DANIEL G. HENKLE,
    DAVID L. HENSELL,
    W. G. BUTLER,
    JAS. S. MARKELL,
    V. M. BUTLER,
    ANDREW M'INTIRE,
    ADAM SMELL,
    GEORGE TABB,
    JOHN MARSHALL."


    "Washington County,
    "Aug. 7th, 1845.

    "I hereby certify that I have used Mr. Obed Hussey's wheat cutter
    through the late harvest, and that it answered my fullest
    expectations, in every respect, except that it will not cut when
    the wheat is _damp from rain or the dews of the morning_. I
    cut 140 acres of wheat with it in nine days; and on one occasion,
    cut off thirty acres in eighteen hours, from daylight in the
    morning until 11 o'clock the next day, and with the same four
    horses, never having changed them during that time.

    "JOHN R. DALL."

[Illustration: Hussey's Rear-Delivery Reaper.
(From "Who Invented the Reaper?" by R. B. Swift.)]

    "Oaklands (near Geneva), N. Y.
    "26th August, 1845.

    "_Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore:_

    "Dear Sir:--Having housed all the grain crops of this farm, it is
    due to you that I should now frankly admit the removal of all my
    doubts in regard to the effectiveness and excellence of your
    'Reaping Machine.' The doubts expressed in my early correspondence
    with you arose from the many abortive attempts in this country and
    in England to produce a reaping machine, possessing power and
    simplicity and durability; most of them were complicated, and
    proved too fragile.

    "Soon after the arrival of your machine, I tried its power and
    became readily familiar with the manner of using it; the result of
    my experience will appear from the following facts:

    "The wheat crop of this farm covered 104 acres, producing 2,540
    shocks, 30,480 sheaves, as counted on the ground, and again when
    housed in the grain barn and sheds.

    "The whole crop was cut by your reaping machine in eight days,
    using one team, a boy to drive and a man to manage the machine.

    "The average quantity cut per day was thirteen acres.

    "The largest quantity cut on any one day was seventeen acres.

    "The longest period for working the machine on any one day was
    nine hours.

    "Seven men were stationed on the field to bind the sheaves.

    "The cost of _cutting_ the wheat with your machine is
    _twenty-five cents_ per acre.

    "The total cost for cutting, raking, binding and shocking is
    _seventy-eight cents and a fraction_ per acre.

    "The cost may be stated as follows, viz:

      A man and team for eight days at $1.50 per day             $12.00

      A boy to drive for eight days at fifty cents per day         4.00

      Interest on cost of machine and for wear and tear,
      say at 10 per cent                                          10.00
                                                                 ______
                                                                 $26.00

    "Which is equal to 25 cents per acre on 104 acres. The seven men
    employed to rake and bind received, each, $1 per day for eight
    days, say $56, which sum added to the cost for cutting or reaping,
    gives a total cost of $82, or 78-88/100 cents per acre.

    "I have compared this cost with the cost paid by my neighboring
    farmers this season, and find it vastly in favor of your machine.
    The individual in this town who harvested with the most economy
    paid $1 13/100 per acre--other farmers have paid from $1 25/100 to
    $2 per acre.

    "Since the wheat harvest the machine has cut with signal advantage
    about twenty acres of oats.

    "The wheat and oats were cut with such neatness and precision that
    the gleanings were not sufficient to pay the labor of raking.

    "The machine remains in perfect order, and did not fail to perform
    all you promised.

    "I deem it one of the best labor-saving machines ever offered for
    the advantage of the farmer; its effectiveness, simple and durable
    construction, have been witnessed with satisfaction by a large
    number of my neighbor farmers.

    "Respectfully yours,

    "J. DELAFIELD."

The machine alluded to in the above letter is the low priced one at $100.

For 1846, 1847 and 1848 we copy from the _Richmond Planter_ and
_American Farmer_--and all from North Carolina, though the evidence
from other sections is much more extended, and equally as conclusive:

    "Somerset Place, Washington Co.,
    "North Carolina 25th Aug. 1847.

    "_To the Editor of the American Farmer:_

    "Dear Sir:--Yours of the 6th ult. arrived at my residence during
    my absence in consequence of which I was unable to return you an
    answer in time for your August number of the _American
    Farmer_. I trust, however, the delay will not materially affect
    the value of my communication. In consequence of the
    recommendation of a gentleman who had used "Hussey's Reaper" in
    the harvest of 1846 with much satisfaction, I was induced to make
    a trial of one the present season. It was put in operation under
    the direction and supervision of Mr. Hussey himself, upon a field
    of reclaimed low ground, originally Cypress Swamp, which of course
    could only be cultivated in beds--these beds were six feet wide,
    including the water-furrow between, and were intersected at
    intervals of about fifty yards by drains, known to us as
    _tap-ditches_, which cross the water furrows at right angles,
    and are cut from two to four inches deeper than the furrows
    themselves. I am particular in describing the land, as I had
    always supposed that an insuperable obstacle in the way of the
    regular action of any machine would be found in the irregularity
    of surface into which our land is necessarily thrown by our system
    of culture. The machine surmounted every anticipated difficulty,
    and was eminently successful, both in cutting lengthwise with the
    beds and across them. The wheat was cut in a most thorough manner;
    nothing escaped the cutting surfaces, nor did weeds or any other
    obstruction of the kind hinder the machine from doing its work
    perfectly. During the running of the machine one day in the
    harvest, seventeen acres of wheat were cut by it.[6] This was done
    by using relays of horses, four at each time, the same hands being
    employed, however, and the working time was twelve hours. After a
    heavy rain we were obliged to abandon the use of the machine,
    owing to the fact that the ground became so soft that the "road
    wheel" as it is termed, buried in the soil, and would become
    clogged with mud. This difficulty can, I have no doubt, be easily
    overcome by increasing the "tread" of this wheel, and making some
    slight alteration in the cog-wheel which gears into it.

      [6] When Mr. Hussey was with me I informed him that the piece of
      wheat cut by the machine on this occasion equalled twenty acres,
      but I have since discovered that I had been mistaken in my
      calculation of the acre.

[Sidenote: A McCormick Failure]

    "Some two years since I saw an experiment made upon an adjoining
    estate with McCormick's machine; it cut occasionally well where
    the wheat was free from weeds, but any obstruction from that
    source would immediately choke it, when of course the wheat would
    be overrun without being cut. The experiment proved a failure, and
    the machine was laid aside. The blade in this machine appears to
    me to be too delicate in its cutting surface to succeed, except
    under the most favorable circumstances. Quite a number of
    McCormick's have been in use in this part of the country during
    the last two years, and to my inquiries concerning them I have
    received but one answer and that an unfavorable one. The few of
    Hussey's machines, on the contrary, that have been employed within
    my ken, have in each instance given entire satisfaction. I do not
    hesitate to say that when well managed, with a skilful hand at the
    rake, in dry wheat (I do not recommend it when the straw is wet),
    it will, as compared with _ordinary_ cutting, save per acre
    the _entire expense of reaping_, from the thorough manner in
    which every stalk is cut, thus preventing loss or waste.

    "Believing, as I do, that a great desideratum to those who grow
    wheat upon a large scale, is to be found in Mr. Hussey's reaper, I
    cannot but wish that both he and they may _reap_ the benefit
    of its general adoption.

    "I am, sir,

    "Very respectfully your ob't serv't,

    "JOSIAH COLLINS."


    "Edenton, N. C.,
    "January 25th, 1848.

    "_To the Editor of the American Farmer:_

    "Dear Sir:--Some months ago I received a letter from you, making
    enquiries of me relative to Hussey's Reaping Machine. When your
    letter reached me I was on the eve of leaving home for the summer,
    and since my return home, my engagements have been of such a
    character as to cause me until the present to neglect replying to
    it.

    "I have used one of Hussey's machines one season, and though under
    circumstances not very favorable for the machine, I take pleasure
    in stating that its operation was satisfactory. During my harvest,
    which was about three weeks' duration, this machine was kept
    constantly at work, with the exception of a day and a half, yet I
    did not ascertain how many acres it would reap. Mr. Collins, of
    Lake Scuppernong also used one last season, and from him I learned
    that he cut upwards of twenty acres a day.

    "There is certainly much less wheat left in the field by one of
    these machines than is by the ordinary method of reaping by the
    scythe or reap hook; it cuts close, lays the straw smoothly, thus
    rendering tying of it in sheaves much easier.

    "I have witnessed McCormick's, which I consider _a poor
    affair_, and _meriting no consideration_ except a dissent
    from me. Many of this last kind of reaper found their way here a
    few years ago; they now, or rather their remains, may be seen
    lying in the field whence they will never be removed.

    "THOS. D. WARREN."

[Illustration: Modern Rear-Delivery Reaper.
(From "Who Invented the Reaper?" by R. B. Swift.)]


From the Richmond Planter.

HUSSEY'S AND M'CORMICK'S REAPERS

"It is very painful to be compelled to inflict a private injury in the
discharge of a public duty; upon a particular system of cultivation we
can talk and write without restraint; but when we are called on to
discuss the merits of an invention, upon which the fortunes of the
originator may absolutely depend, it is a much more responsible and
delicate office. We are aware, too, that in introducing a subject of the
kind, we are opening the floodgates of a controversy that is often hard
to close; we have had the strongest evidence of that fact in the
controversy that once occurred in this paper between Messrs. McCormick
and Hussey, and yet it is to the relative merits of the reaping machines
of these two gentlemen that we are compelled again to draw the public
attention. Probably not less than fifteen thousand dollars has been spent
in Virginia this summer for reaping machines, and it becomes a subject of
great importance to the wheat growing community at least, to ascertain
how such a sum is annually to be dispensed to the greatest advantage. We
shall express no _opinion_ ourself in the discussion which must
necessarily follow the introduction of this subject, and we would greatly
prefer that neither of the gentlemen more particularly interested in the
subject would appear in our columns. We will publish statements of facts
for either, provided they are made over responsible names, and are short
and permanent. As one of these facts we feel bound to state that we acted
this year as the agent for McCormick's machine, and we have heard great
complaint of the manner in which it was gotten up; but it is but fair
also to state, that we believe Mr. McCormick himself has been
superintending the manufacture of his machine in the State of New York,
and that probably his work has not been as well done as it would have
been could he have seen to it in person. The following communication is
altogether in favor of Hussey's machine:

[Sidenote: Hussey's Machine "Vastly Superior"]

"I have had in operation on my plantation this year both Hussey's and
McCormick's reapers. Now, as you have asked me to furnish the
_Planter_ with the result of my own experience and opinion as to the
comparative merit of the two machines, it is now at your service. I have
had them both in operation (as the weather would permit) for the last
fortnight, and have cut with the two rather upwards of two hundred acres
of wheat. Both machines have been, I think, very fairly tested in all
qualities of grain, from wheat five feet and more in height, both
standing up, and lodged and tangled, and averaging, as is supposed, from
thirty and forty bushels, down to light, thin wheat, not averaging more
than four bushels (being some galled hills) and I am _candidly_ and
_decidedly_ of opinion that Hussey's machine is _vastly
superior_. I deem it superior, not only in the execution of its work,
but in the durability of the machine. So well pleased am I with its
performance that I have ordered another machine of Hussey's for my next
harvest, and also one, and probably two, for my father's plantation. I
consider this machine invaluable to the grower of wheat, and would
recommend every farmer who grows even fifty acres of wheat, to purchase
one. He may rest assured that he will be pleased with his purchase. I
shall probably be in Richmond shortly.

"Yours very respectfully,

"T. POLLOCK BURGUYN.

"Occonichee Wigwam, near Halifax, N. C.,
"June 20, 1846.

"For 1849 and 1850 we will return and see how the invention progresses
on the broad prairies and fertile lands of the West, where it first
operated--in 1833 and 1834--and where, too, although the most luxuriant
crops are _grown_ with comparatively but little labor, it would in
many cases be next to impossible to save _them_ without the aid of
this invaluable invention.

"These certificates embrace the mowing of large crops of grass as well as
grain, and in addition, the cutting of more than three hundred acres of
_hemp_ in the harvest of 1849 and 1850, by 'the same single machine.'

"Hussey's complete success in cutting grass and hemp was no new thing ten
years ago; but we suppose, like the grain cutting, in the view of Philip
Pusey, Esq., M. P., 'Its _perfection_ depended on its being _new_
only in England,' full eighteen years after it was effected in America.

[Sidenote: A General Opinion]

    "Blackberry, Kane County, Ill.,
    "August 28, 1849.

    "This may certify that I have had one of Mr. Hussey's mowing and
    reaping machines on my farm this year cutting wheat, oats, and grass
    for a short time. I think nothing can beat it cutting timothy grass,
    and I intend to purchase one for that purpose. While the machine was
    cutting prairie grass in my field, I cut off a dry poplar stake, one
    inch in diameter, which had been sticking in the ground after it had
    been laid off for a ditch. I am of the opinion that it will cut
    wheat well, where it is so much lodged, or so foul with stiff weeds
    or corn stalks that it cannot be cut with any other machine I have
    seen in this country. Some of my neighbors say that they intend to
    have Mr. Hussey's reaper in preference to any other; and from what I
    can learn this opinion is pretty general in my neighborhood amongst
    those who have seen this machine work, and are acquainted with other
    machines. My brother farmers have had great trouble with McCormick's
    machine, by the breaking of sickles, and the great difficulty or
    rather the impossibility of getting them repaired, or getting new
    ones made when broken, whereas the blades of Mr. Hussey's machine
    can be made by any common blacksmith. I have no doubt but Mr.
    Hussey's machine will come into general use.

    "D. W. ANNIS."


    "Franklin Precinct, DeKalb Co.,
    "August 13, 1849.

    "This may certify that we have seen Mr. O. Hussey's machine cut
    about an acre of wheat, so badly lodged that McCormick's reaper
    could do nothing with it, nor could it be cradled. Said Hussey's
    machine cut it handsomely, and laid it in very good bundles for
    binding.

    "JOHN SCHOOMAKER,
    ALBERT FIELD,
    JOHN M. SCHOOMAKER,
    DANIEL MILLER,
    ALBERT FIELD, JR.,
    ISAAC CRILL,
    JOHN MILLER."


    "Berkshire, Kane County, Ill.,
    "August 6, 1849.

    "We, the undersigned, having seen Mr. Hussey's reaper work at
    cutting grass and grain, think it preferable to McCormick's or any
    other machine that we have seen. It cut wheat that could not be cut
    with McCormick's reaper or a cradle. We are well acquainted with
    McCormick's machine.

    "P. A. HIXBY,
    JOHN GRIGGS, JR.,
    JOHN GRIGGS,
    HARRY POTTER,
    JOHN SHIRWOOD,
    SETH SHIRWOOD,
    DAVID SHANKS,
    ABRAHAM SHIRWOOD,
    JAMES HESS,
    ALSON BANKER,
    D. C. WRIGHT,
    ELISHA WRIGHT."


    "Oswego, Ill.,
    "August 2, 1849.

    "This may certify that I cut a lot of Black Sea Wheat with Mr. O.
    Hussey's Reaper; the wheat was so badly lodged that no McCormick
    Reaper or Cradle could cut it; Mr. Hussey's Reaper cut it clean and
    laid the bundles out of the track in good order for binding. I have
    seen the work done by this machine in grass; it was as good work as
    ever I saw done by a scythe, or better. For my choice I should
    rather have my grass cut by the Reaper than by the scythe. Every
    farmer ought to have such a machine, and every farmer I hear talk
    about it says the same.

    "PHILIP YOUNG."


    "Sugar Grove,
    "August 8, 1849.

    "This may certify that we have seen Mr. O. Hussey's machine operate
    in clean grain, and where weeds were very tall, large and thick. In
    the former, it operated as well as any machine we have seen; in the
    latter, it worked to a charm, even where it was impracticable to cut
    with one of McCormick's Reapers.

    "HARRY WHITE,
    L. B. SNOW,
    CHAUNCEY SNOW,
    SULLIVAN DORR,
    HIRAM TUBS,
    DWIGHT SPENCER,
    SAMUEL WARD,
    A. LOGAN."


    "Springfield, Ill.,
    "Dec. 25, 1850.

    "_Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore, Md.:_

    "Dear Sir:--I have used one of your Mowing and Reaping Machines, and
    consider it the best machine I ever saw, and never intend to do
    without one, if it is possible to get one, even if I have to go to
    Baltimore and remain at the shop till one can be made. I do candidly
    believe if I had had one ten years ago I would now feel like a much
    younger man; and cheerfully recommend them to all who have grass or
    grain to cut, as a machine that will do their work in perfect order,
    neatness, and with ease to all employed.

    "JOHN SIMMS,
    "Four miles west of Springfield, Ill."


    "Utica, Lasal Co., Ill.,
    "Dec. 14, 1850.

    "_Obed Hussey, Esq.:_

    "Dear Sir:--I received your Reaping and Mowing Machine in time for
    harvest, and used it for harvesting and for mowing. I am fully
    satisfied that your machines are the best yet offered to the farmers
    of this State. I have mowed about four hundred acres, a great
    portion of which was wild prairie, very frequently running against
    stones and ant heaps with sufficient force to throw both driver and
    raker off the machine, without injury to the machine. Why your
    machine is preferable to any other, is, after you have cut your
    different kinds of grain, fully as well as can be done with any
    other machine, with not over fifteen minutes' work, you can take the
    same machine into your meadow or on to the prairie, and cut your
    grass at the rate of ten acres per day, cutting closer and cleaner
    than can be done with a scythe. With proper care, your machines will
    last fifteen or twenty years, with trifling repairs.

    "Respectfully yours,

    JAMES CLARK."


    "Island Grove, Sangamon Co., Ill.,
    "December 25, 1850.

    "_Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore, Md.:_

    "Dear Sir:--Last summer I received two of Hussey's Mowing and
    Reaping Machines; one from your own shop in Baltimore, and the other
    manufactured in this State. Unfortunately for me, I retained the one
    manufactured in this State, and with some difficulty succeeded in
    cutting about two hundred acres of wheat and grass. The one from
    your shop I let Mr. John Simms have, who cut his wheat, oats and hay
    (about seventy-five acres) with perfect satisfaction and ease, most
    of it with two horses, and without being obliged to grind the
    knives. After Mr. Simms finished his harvest he let Mr. James D.
    Smith, of Island Grove, have it, who cut about three hundred acres
    of grass with it, the machine giving perfect satisfaction.

    "Very respectfully yours,

    "EDWARD J. ENO."


    "Carrolton, Green Co., Ill.,
    "Dec. 27, 1850.

    "I procured one of Mr. Hussey's Reaping and Mowing Machines from
    Baltimore last spring; I cut eighty acres of wheat, and ten acres
    of oats, and fifty acres of timothy with it, to my entire
    satisfaction--after which I cut sixty acres of cloverseed with it in
    less than five days. I could not have saved the cloverseed without
    the machine, so I consider I saved the whole cost of the machine in
    the saving of the cloverseed alone.

    "SAMUEL THOMAS."


    "Springfield, Ill.,
    "Dec. 25, 1850.

    "_Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore, Md.:_

    "Dear Sir:--During the harvest of August, 1849, with one of your
    machines I cut sixty acres of Hemp, using a set of 4-1/2 feet knives
    and guards, and two teams of four horses each, changing every two
    rounds, which cut on an average eight acres per day. This last
    harvest, the same single machine, with 6 foot guides and knives,[7]
    operated by the same force, cut successfully 250 acres of hemp, or
    from 10 to 12 acres per day. From this experience, I take pleasure
    in recommending your Cutters above the hemp cradle and hook, not
    only as labor-saving, by the expedition with which they cut, but as
    hemp saving, from the perfect thoroughness, evenness and nearness to
    the ground with which they do their work, and the regular and
    collected form in which they leave the hemp after being cut.

    "Yours respectfully,

    "EDWARD S. COX."

      [7] The cutters were lengthened by removing a board that previously
      reduced the cutting space to 4-1/2 feet in length.


    "Carrolton, Lebanon Co., Ill.,
    "Sept., 1850.

    "_Mr. O. Hussey:_

    "The four Reaping and Mowing Machines you sent arrived safe and in
    good order. Their performance far exceeded our expectations, the
    work went on so smoothly that we scarcely knew it was hay time and
    harvest. * * * If your machine had been as well known as they are
    now, you could have sold twenty as well as one.

    "Yours,

    "JONAS WARD."


The few letters which follow, taken from the _American Farmer_, and
referring to a still later period, are selected for their brevity, from
many others, and principally from Maryland and Ohio. It is considered
unnecessary to extend the list, for the operation and character of the
machine is too well and too widely known at this day to render it
necessary to the intelligent farmer and general reader, in any grain
growing section of the country.[8]

      [8] With the view of determining as far as possible which was the
      best Reaping and Mowing Machines for the farmer to purchase, the
      Maryland State Agricultural Society in 1852 offered a prize of one
      hundred dollars--the largest yet offered in the country--for the
      best machine, to be tested by a committee appointed by the
      Society; a large committee of men of the first standing in the
      State, and all large wheat growers, was appointed, and extended
      notice published of the trial to take place at "Wye," the seat of
      Col. Edward Lloyd, Eastern Shore, Md., in July.

      Every effort was made by the Society and Committee to give a fair
      and satisfactory trial; as the extent of crops in that fine wheat
      growing region, and extensive level face of the country, are
      unsurpassed anywhere for such an exhibition.

      But two machines were entered for competition, McKeever's and
      Hussey's. The prize was awarded unanimously to Hussey. Why no
      others could be induced to attend was a matter of surprize at the
      time, and so remains with many.


    "Harewood,
    "12mo., 8, 1852.

    "Having used one of O. Hussey's Reaping and Mowing Machines during
    the last harvest (1852) I can state that in cutting wheat, oats
    and cloverseed--also in mowing my crop of grass--it has fully
    answered my expectations, doing the work better than I ever had it
    done by the scythe, and at much less expense. The machine has been
    tested by cutting some fifty to sixty acres of grass--quite
    sufficient to prove its complete adaptation to mowing as well as
    reaping.

    "EDWARD STABLER."


    "Wye House,
    "Dec. 20, 1852.

    "Dear Sir:--Having worked your Reaper for many years I have fully
    tested its merits. It has proved itself to be not only a wheat
    saving implement but a labor and time saving one--these are all
    important to the farmer.

    "It does its work completely, regardless of the position of the
    wheat, if in condition to bind.

    "Those you sent me in the spring worked well through the harvest,
    and proved their strength.

    "Yours respectfully,

    "EDW'D LLOYD."


    "Oxford, Md.,
    "Dec. 8, 1852.

    "_Mr. Obed Hussey:_

    "Sir:--I have used your Reaper with such entire satisfaction that
    I am but performing a duty to my brother farmers by recommending
    it in the strongest terms.

    "For sixteen years I have used a Reaping Machine, and know from
    experience that the most important qualities are _strength_
    and _simplicity_. In these respects your machine is superior
    to any other, and is the only one I have seen which can be safely
    entrusted to the management of ordinary overseers, with negro
    laborers.

    "Yours, etc.,

    "TENCH TILGHMAN."


    "Hayes, Montgomery Co., Md.,
    "December 7, 1852.

    "I purchased in the year 1851 one of Mr. Obed Hussey's Reaping
    Machines. I used it that year and this year in cutting my grain; I
    was pleased with the machine; I consider it a valuable implement,
    and hope never to be without one while I continue to be a farmer.
    My machine was used in cutting wheat and oats--it was not designed
    for grass. I employed it about half the day, and reaped about ten
    acres of land in grain--the rest of the day was devoted to the
    securing of the grain; I used four horses. My machine, I believe,
    was of the smallest size, and was without front wheels; with
    wheels it would have been a relief to the horses.

    "I cannot speak of the relative value of this machine compared
    with others, having never seen any Reaping Machines but Hussey's
    at work. I do not think I could be induced to return to the old
    mode of cutting grain by the scythe and cradle.

    "Respectfully yours, etc.,

    "ROBERT P. DUNLOP."


    "Forest Hill, King and Queens Co., Va.,
    "December 24, 1852.

    "_Mr. O. Hussey:_

    "Sir:--It gives me pleasure to state that I used your Reaping
    Machine in my late harvest with great satisfaction. It fully
    equals my expectation as a labor-saving implement, and does the
    work better than can be done by the cradle. I would farther state
    that the seven which were purchased along with mine for my
    relations and friends of this country have given in every
    instance, entire satisfaction.

    "Very respectfully,

    "WM. D. GRESHAM."


    "_To the Editor of the American Farmer:_

    "Dear Sir:--Having had a fair opportunity of observing the
    performance of Mr. Hussey's celebrated 'Reaper' on my farm last
    season, under circumstances peculiarly calculated to test its
    efficiency, I think it not inappropriate to bear my testimony in
    its favor.

    "I finished cutting my grain more than a week ago. The grain was
    not only blown as flat as possible, but was tangled and twisted
    together, and lying in every direction; so much so that it would
    have been impossible to cut a large portion of it with the cradle.
    No one who saw the field believed the machine could possibly
    succeed.

    "I take great pleasure in stating that its success was perfect and
    entire. It cut and gathered the grain in the very worst spots
    almost as well as that which was standing; and I was thus enabled
    to mow my crop in about one-half the time the _old fashioned_
    method would have required, thereby effecting a large pecuniary
    gain. It cuts the grass as evenly and as close as the most expert
    mower. I need scarcely say that I am perfectly satisfied with it.
    I subscribe myself yours, etc.,

    "AQUILLA TABOT."


    "Alexandria, Va.,
    "12 mo., 11, 1852.

    "It gives me much pleasure to state that I have had in use on my
    farm in Montgomery County, Md., for the past two seasons, one of
    'Hussey's Reapers,' and its operation has given me _entire
    satisfaction in every respect_. It appears to combine the three
    qualities so important to the farmer, efficiency, durability and
    economy. I can, with great sincerity, recommend its general
    adoption.

    "BENJAMIN HALLOWELL."


    "_To Obed Hussey:_

    "Dear Sir:--Having used one of your Reapers upon land, a great
    deal of which was hilly, stony and rough, I take pleasure in
    saying that it has given entire satisfaction, and proved to be a
    very durable, well built, and great labor saving machine.

    "Respectfully,

    "A. B. DAVIS."

    "Greenwood, Mont. Co., Md., Dec. 20, 1852."


    "Pickaway County, O.,
    "July 1, 1851.

    "I made an experiment this season in my field of testing the
    McCormick and Hussey Reapers. I tried each fairly and under
    similar circumstances. I am satisfied that Hussey's is decidedly
    the best Reaper, both as to cutting grain and durability. The
    objections made to Hussey's Reaper by agents and manufacturers of
    other machines I do not find, upon trial, to exist in any one
    particular.

    "WM. STAGE."


    "We, the undersigned, present at the trial, concur in Mr. Stage's
    statement: Z. Pritchett, John Reber, Philip Stuart, Isaac Stage,
    John Hogeland, Michael Eyer."


    "Salem Tp., Champaign Co., O.,
    "July, 1851.

    "I have worked with McCormick and Hussey's Reapers three seasons,
    and unqualifiedly pronounce Hussey's the best machine. It cuts
    cleaner and faster, and leaves the grain in better order on the
    ground; and this is the opinion of every hand in giving an
    expression of the comparative merits of the two machines.

    "THOS. OUTRAM."


    "Union Township, Champaign County, O.,
    "July, 1851.

    "I have for the past four seasons worked Hussey's Reaper, and
    unhesitatingly pronounce it vastly superior to McCormick's or any
    other Reaper I have seen used.

    "WILLIAM T. ZOMBRO."


    "Salem Township, Champaign County, O.,
    "July, 1851.

    "I have had Hussey's Reaper used on my farm. It will cut 20 acres
    of the heaviest wheat per day, with ease. I consider it far
    superior to the McCormick Reaper.

    "JOSHUA BUFFINGTON."


    "Ross County, Ohio,
    "July, 1851.

    "I have used Hussey's Reaper, and consider it an invaluable
    machine. I have seen McCormick's Reaper operate, and am of opinion
    that Hussey's is the best machine.

    "D. M'CONNELL."


    "Union Township, Champaign County, O.,
    "August, 1851.

    "I have used Hussey's Reaper for four years. I prefer it to every
    other machine. I do not have to drive fast, and the raking is the
    easiest work in the field.

    "JOHN EARSOM."


    "Salem Township, Champaign County, O.,
    "August, 1851.

    "I bought a Hussey Reaper this season, and it has given the best
    satisfaction. I cut wheat that was down as badly as any I ever
    saw. It operated well by driving in a slow walk. My hands would
    rather rake than bind.

    "JOHN LEE."


    "Union Township, Champaign County, O.,
    "July, 1851.

    "I have used for five years Hussey's Reaper. It is a labor and
    grain saving machine. It is a much better machine than
    McCormick's, in several particulars; it is more substantial, not
    so liable to injury, and will cut faster and cleaner. I cut this
    season, with three horses, sixteen acres of heavy wheat, in five
    hours and thirty minutes.

    "REZIN C. WILSON."


    "Bergen,
    "September 1, 1851.

    "This is to certify that I have for three seasons used one of
    Hussey's Reaping Machines, which I purchased at the Genesee Seed
    Store, and that it gives perfect satisfaction. I have cut my wheat
    when it was very badly lodged, much faster, better and cheaper
    than it could have been done in any other way. I had one of
    McCormick's, but left it in the road, a useless article, as I
    consider it, having tried for three years to use it without
    success.

    "I consider Hussey's machine just the thing for our farmers, and I
    could not now, after having proved its merits, be induced to be
    without one.

    "NOAH WILSON."


With a few general remarks as to the reputation of Reaping Machines in
England, and on the authority of the annexed English publications, we
take leave of the subject.

At the trial for which the "Great Council Medal" was awarded, but which
no practical farmer in this country would consider as any trial at all,
being merely the attempt to cut a small space in green and wet grain, and
during the temporary absence of Hussey, his machine was operated by
ignorant laborers of the "Chrystal Palace," and who had never before seen
a reaping machine.

This did not satisfy the English farmers; complaints were soon heard of
injustice, partiality, and unfairness. It compelled C. H. McCormick or
his agents to offer a challenge, which was promptly accepted by Hussey;
and before the Cleveland Agricultural Society a tolerably fair trial was
had of the rival machines, though neither the grain nor ground was then
in a suitable state. For the decision of twelve prominent men and
practical farmers we refer to the annexed English account for the
complete triumph of the unmedalled machine.

In an interview with an extensive agricultural implement maker of
Yorkshire--himself an inventor of many valuable implements, and to no
small extent a rival--he spoke of Obed Hussey as a man who conferred
honor on his own country; as well by his genius and talents, as by his
integrity of character. This feeling was alike honorable to the gentleman
who gave it expression, and just to an American citizen.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Distinction]

Obed Hussey is perhaps the only American who ever waved the "Stars and
Stripes" on the soil of England [placed there, too, at different times,
on his machine, by _Englishmen_] or who could do it without a strong
feeling of envy and jealousy being engendered. Even Englishmen, jealous
as they are known to be, viewed Hussey as a public benefactor, and his
mission as one calculated either directly or indirectly to benefit all
classes. Yet in his own country, which he has so signally benefited, he
is compelled to supplicate for years, and as yet in vain, for rights,
that others, with not a tithe of his claim and merit, but with more ample
means perhaps, or more influential friends, succeed in obtaining. It is a
reproach to the age and to the Halls of Legislation. When it was supposed
this great invention was perfected in England, many years ago--though
_not_ successful, as was subsequently proved--the _Nation_ took
the matter in hand, and Parliament voted a reward to its author.

At the great Agricultural Exhibition for "Bath and the West of England,"
held at Plymouth in 1853, the _Plymouth Mail_ states: ["the interest
and excitement created by the trial of Reaping Machines was very great,
and the crowd of persons assembled to witness their performance was
immense"]--that Hussey won the prize for Reaping, by acclamation, over
all competitors--the only other American machine present, McCormick's
included; and an eye witness states that three cheers were proposed for
Mr. Hussey by Sir Thomas Ackland, the President, and member of
Parliament, which was responded to by thousands, and without a dissenting
voice; that his reaper was crowned with laurel by the Judges, and the
"Stars and Stripes" waved in triumph twenty-five feet high over American
ingenuity and enterprise on English soil.

[Illustration: Gold medal won by Mr. Hussey with the Reaper at Baltimore
in 1853.

Silver medal won by Mr. Hussey with the Reaper and his Steam Plough at
New York in 1857.]

[Sidenote: A Mowing Machine as Well as a Reaper]

At this trial it was again demonstrated to the agriculturists of Great
Britain by Obed Hussey [and not the first time, though he was the first
to do it] that his machine would cut their grass quite as perfectly as
their "corn." The _Mail_ goes on to say: "A mowing machine was so
remote from the expectations and hopes of the Society, that no prize was
offered for one; yet Mr. Hussey was prepared with a mowing machine, which
was taken to an adjoining field of meadow grass and clover mixed. The
people followed, but evidently with no expectation of being gratified.
The machine mower was put in action, and to the admiration of every one,
it cut the grass with an evenness and precision which is truly
surprising, being more close and even than a scythe. The grass left
behind the machine was quite evenly spread, and where it was not so, it
lay so light and open that the use of the tending machine was scarcely
necessary. The admiration of the truly astonishing performance was
universal.

"The cutting the rye was looked for, but mowing the grass took every one
by surprise. Thus a great desideratum has been achieved; the farmer has
now only to gear up his horses and take a ride through his meadow, and
his grass is cut."

Again, at the Royal Agricultural Society's Exhibition, held at Lincoln,
the present season, the _Mark Lane Express_ states that Hussey's
machine won the prize over all competitors; and admits that Bell's
machine was "at last fairly beaten."

Is there an _American_ who can read these accounts who does not feel
indebted to the man who, solely by his own perseverance and skill, has
added lustre to his country's renown in the peaceful walks of life? If
the same man, as a "warrior in hostile array," had raised the same flag
in triumph on the same soil, how would his countrymen have rewarded him?
Doubtless by a "vote of thanks by both Houses of Congress," together with
a sword and gold medal, if not a monument in addition!

[Sidenote: A Peaceful Conquest]

Should not those be equally honored and rewarded by the Country, who are
engaged in the arts and in agriculture; who devote their energies to add
to the comfort and happiness of their fellow man, as those engaged in
shedding blood, making widows and orphans to mourn for their untimely
bereavement, and who literally for hire, not patriotism, and with the
spirit demons, seek to slay and destroy?

We fully believe so; for fame and renown in arms are rarely or never
acquired, except by entailing misery and distress on our fellow beings,
and engendering the worst feelings and passions of our nature.

But we hope for the advent of better days; when, if the political sword
is not literally beaten into a plough-share, and the partisan spear
turned into a pruning hook, the inventive genius and talent of our
countrymen shall be more aided and better rewarded by Government, in its
praiseworthy efforts "for the diffusion of knowledge among men," in all
that really ennobles the mind, and benefits the whole human family. Such,
at least, is the earnest wish and desire of

A FARMER AND MECHANIC.


HUSSEY'S REAPING AND MOWING MACHINE IN ENGLAND

[Sidenote: An Unfair Disadvantage]

"In presenting the following pages for consideration of the farmers of
the country, the subscriber has confined himself strictly to matters
selected from English papers, which will speak for itself. As a short
explanation from me will be looked for, I will merely state that at the
trial in presence of the Exhibition Jury, Mr. McCormick's machine was
operated by an experienced hand sent from the United States, while mine
was managed by English laborers of the lower class, who were total
strangers to it, and had never seen it in operation. The trial was made
in unripe wheat on a rainy day. My machine was very improperly adjusted
for the work and wrongly put together, in consequence of which the
ignorant raker failed to deliver the sheaves, and it stopped as a matter
of course, and was immediately laid aside, after cutting but a few feet.
My machine was never tried in presence of that Jury by any other hands,
or in any other condition, myself not being in England.

"It was on such a trial that the Exhibition medal was disposed of, and
with what justice the reader can judge by reading the following pages. On
my arrival in England I took my machine into the field that it might work
its way into public favor as it best could. After being exhibited in
several places, its rising fame appeared to produce some effect, as it
will appear by the following in the _Windsor and Eaton Express_ of
November 8, 1851:

"Alluding to the astonishing and unexpected performance of my Reaper, it
says: '_By this unlooked for turn of events, the proprietors of
McCormick's machine found that their supremacy was no longer undisputed,
and that the necessity was laid upon them to look to their laurels; they
therefore came boldly forward, and threw down the gauntlet!_'

[Illustration: Hussey's Side-Delivery Reaper As Used in England. (From An
Old Print)]

[Sidenote: How McCormick Received a Medal]

"That farmers who are acquainted with my reaper may understand why it
failed to perform well in the hands of strangers at the Exhibition trial
where McCormick got the medal, it will be necessary for me to say that
when the machine was sent from Baltimore it was set to cut high. That
when the inexperienced hands undertook to make it cut low, they pitched
down the cutters by putting on the tongue, not knowing any other way to
lower it. In doing so the hind part of the platform was of course raised
high. In this condition the unpracticed raker failed to push the heavy
wet wheat off up an inclined plane; and as a matter of course the machine
choaked, and for the same reason that a mill will choak when the corn
goes in faster than the meal comes out. A skillful hand would have
lowered the cut at the axle of the machine, and brought the platform
horizontal or lowest at the rear, as it should be in cutting wet grain.

"The following pages will show the result, the authenticity of which, if
doubted, will be proved by the production of the originals in my
possession.

"OBED HUSSEY.

"Baltimore, Md., Jan. 1, 1852."


From the Hull [England] Advertiser, September 5, 1851.

"At the annual meeting on Mr. Mechi's Farm at Tiptree Heath, a few weeks
ago, a brief report of which appeared in the Hull Advertiser at the time,
several reaping machines were tested, the result then being that one
manufactured and invented by Mr. McCormick, of America, was the only one
which was considered to have done its work properly. Amongst those tried
was one invented and manufactured by Mr. O. Hussey, Baltimore, Md. (U.
S.) which, in the opinion of gentlemen then present, did not fully
accomplish the object in view. It should, however, be mentioned, that
while Mr. McCormick's machine had on that trial the advantage of the
superintendence of persons intimately acquainted with its mechanism, and
who had been accustomed to the working of the machine for some years, Mr.
Hussey's invention was (in the absence of the inventor) in the hands of
persons entirely unacquainted with the proper mode of working it. Since
then Mr. Hussey himself has come over to England in order to superintend
his machine, and the result has been that it is now brought out to
receive a thorough trial of its merits.

"The trial of Wednesday, however, was the best. It took place in a field
belonging to Mr. Coskill, Grovehill Lane, Beverly. There was assembled
during the day a great number of farmers and gentlemen interested in
agriculture, who witnessed the trial with great interest.

"The wheat in this case was very much 'laid;' indeed in many places it
was almost flat on the ground. It therefore afforded one of the best
opportunities for judging of the capabilities of the machine under
disadvantageous circumstances that could possibly occur.

"On the whole, the conclusion come to was that the reaping was done as
well by machine as by hand. No one doubted for a moment that it would cut
corn well where it was standing; but some farmers thought it would not
equal the scythe where the corn was laid. The result, however, showed the
contrary, and every person acknowledged that it had succeeded admirably.
After cutting a large quantity of wheat, the machine was taken into
another field, and after a slight alteration, set to work to cut clover.
We understand that on the day before previous to coming to Hull, it had
been tried on clover and cut it extremely well.

[Sidenote: Winning Its Own Way]

"As the machine cut along it was followed closely by groups of farmers
striving hard to find flaws in its performance. But they could not. On
the contrary, in those places where the corn was most 'laid,' and where,
consequently, the greatest difficulty must occur in the cutting, the
manner in which the reaper did its work elicited their loudest
approbation. 'Why,' said one burly old gentleman by our side, 'a man with
a scythe could never cut it like that.' 'It is wonderful,' said another.


From the Morning Advertiser, September 12, 1851.

"On Monday last, the public trial of Hussey's patent Reaping Machine took
place with the permission of his Grace, the Duke of Marlborough, on his
Grace's estate of Blenheim, near Woodstock, Oxfordshire, and also, on the
adjoining one of Mr. Southern, one of the most considerable landed
proprietors of the country. A large assemblage of the Agriculturists of
the highest class attracted by the celebrity which this ingenious and
efficient contrivance has acquired for itself in a course of successful
experiments performed last week in Yorkshire, were present to witness the
trial, mostly from Oxfordshire and the adjoining counties, but many from
a considerable distance, and all of them concurred in the most ready
acknowledgments of its advantages.

[Sidenote: The Duke of Marlborough's Test]

"The reaping commenced at 11 o'clock in the barley field, the machine
being drawn by two fine chestnut horses, lent by his Grace for the
purpose of the experiment, in which he took the deepest interest,
following the reaper in a car, and watching with evident satisfaction,
the ease and rapidity with which the blades cut down the golden produce
of the field. The crop was by no means one calculated to favor the
experiment. On the contrary, some of it was down and much laid. It was
cut down, however, with great regularity and speed, and the general
evenness of the stubble was the subject of general remark. As the machine
passed on, hewing its way at a smart pace through the dense mass of
stalks, the crowd of eager observers rushed after it, and many were the
cheers with which it was welcomed. Occasionally, to satisfy the ideas of
the more fastidious, the level of the cutters was changed, so as to leave
a greater or less length of stubble, and it was evident to all that in
this respect the machine was susceptible of the nicest adjustment. Some
times at the end of a turn it was rested to give the farmers an
opportunity of inspecting it, which they seemed never tired of doing, and
then it was turned round at right angles to cut in the cross direction.
In the experiments upon barley, it showed itself capable of reaping the
enormous space of fifteen acres, which we believe is from eight to nine
times the power of the most vigorous and skillful reaper. Afterwards the
machine was taken into a large field of clover, which it cut to within
two inches of the ground, and with still greater rapidity.

"His Grace repeatedly expressed his admiration of the powers of the
apparatus, and congratulated some of the agricultural gentlemen present
with him on the prospects of greater economy and security in harvesting
which it afforded them. These opinions were generally entertained upon
the ground, and yesterday at Bishop's Startford, in Hartfordshire, the
farmers of that part of the country witnessed a similar experiment,
attended with results precisely similar, and which gave them the same
satisfaction."

[Illustration: McCormick's American Reaper]


The following testimonial was given by the Duke of Marlborough:

"Tuesday, September 9th, 1851.

"Having yesterday witnessed the working of the American Reaping Machine,
patented by Mr. Hussey, and being requested to give my opinion upon its
execution, I state that it performed its work admirably, laying the corn
when cut very neatly for tying up, and leaving the stubble very regular.

"MARLBOROUGH."


Following upon these various successes, an advertisement from the
proprietors of McCormick's Machine appeared in the public papers, as
follows:


MR. M'CORMICK'S AMERICAN REAPER

[Sidenote: The Challenge]

"Public Challenge to Makers and Venders of Reaping Machines: We, the
undersigned, agents for Mr. McCormick, having observed sundry
advertisements and circulars complaining of the decision of the Jurors of
the Great Exhibition of 1851 in favor of Mr. McCormick's Reaper, and of
the reports given in the public journals of the trials which led to such
decision, do hereby give notice to Messrs. Wm. Dray & Co., Messrs.
Garrett & Son, Mr. O. Hussey, and all other makers and venders of Reaping
Machines whatsoever, that M'CORMICK'S Reaper will be tried at the
Cleveland Society's Show at Marton, Middlesbrough, near Stockton-on-Tees,
on the 25th inst., and publicly CHALLENGE them or any of them, to meet us
there, with their machines, for the purpose of a comparative trial of the
respective merits of each, to be determined by the Chairman and Council
of the Cleveland Society, or by such Judge or Judges as the said Society
may appoint. BURGESS & KEY, 103 Newgate Street, London."

The Challenge was immediately accepted.


MR. HUSSEY'S AMERICAN REAPER

[Sidenote: The Acceptance]

"In answer to an advertisement which appeared in the Times of the 18th,
from Messrs. Burgess & Key, giving us a PUBLIC CHALLENGE to a TRIAL of
the AMERICAN REAPING MACHINES, we hereby announce that we shall willingly
ACCEPT the SAME, and on the 25th inst. we shall be prepared at the
Cleveland Society's Show, Marton, Middlesborough, near Stockton-on-Tees,
to prove to the Agricultural World the superiority of HUSSEY'S REAPER for
general farming purposes. We stipulate, however, that the Machines shall
be tested, not only on a particular patch of good upstanding grain, where
they might, perhaps, prove equal, but on an average variety of
conditions, as to short and laid corn, etc., such as the farmer will
usually meet with. Its capabilities for cutting green crops, such as
clover, etc., shall also be proved. It must be evident to the Farming
Public that the Reaping Machine which will cut a crop of the greatest
variety and difference of condition must possess the greatest merit. WM.
DRAY & CO., Agricultural Warehouse, Swan-Lane, London Bridge."


Accordingly the matter was arranged, and the following gentlemen were
called upon to act as jurors:

Henry Stephen Thompson, Esq., of Moat Hall, _Foreman_; Mr. Wm.
Lister of Dunsa Bank; Mr. Jno. Booth of Killerby; Mr. John Parrington, of
Brancepeth; Mr. Wm. Wetherell, of Kirkbridge, Darlington; Mr. Robert
Hymers, of Marton; Mr. Christopher Cobson, Linthorpe; Mr. Robert Fawcitt,
of Ormsby; Mr. Joseph Parrington, of Cross Beck; Mr. John Outhwaite, of
Bainesse; Mr. Geo. Reed, Hutton Lowcross; Mr. Thomas Phillips, of
Helmsley, and Mr. Thomas Outhwaite, of Bainesse.

The following were the conditions to be submitted by the representatives
of the respective machines:

The machines to be tried on wheat and barley in such order, and for such
lengths of time, as the jurymen may direct. The jury to have full power
to use any means they deem advisable in order to put the machines to the
severest trial. The jury in deciding on the merits of the two machines,
to take into their consideration:

[Sidenote: Conditions of the Contest]

1st. Which of the two cuts corn in the best manner.

2d. Which of the two causes the least waste.

3d. Which of the two does the most work in a given time.

4th. Which of the two leaves the corn in the best order for gathering and
binding.

5th. Which of the two is the best adapted for the ridge and furrow.

6th. Which of the two is the least liable to get out of order.

7th. Which of the two at first cost is least price.

8th. Which of the two requires the least amount of horse labor.

9th. Which of the two requires the least amount of manual labor.

As no report was made of the trial on the first day, the following may be
relied upon:

From the Gateshead Observer, September 27, 1851.

"It was curious to see on the soil of a Cleveland farm two implements of
agriculture lying side by side in rivalry, respectively marked,
'McCormick, inventor, Chicago, Illinois,' 'Hussey, inventor, Baltimore,
Maryland'--America competing with America, on English soil.

"Mr. Hussey led off. An attempt was made to keep back the eager crowd;
but their curiosity was irrepressible; they flocked in upon the machine
so that the experiment could not be properly performed, nor could the
jury duly discharge their duties. P. C. Thompson did his very best; he
was all but everywhere at once; but what avails a police force,
_one_ strong, against a concourse of Yorkshire yeomanry and clowns?
It was requisite that he should have recruits, and a body of self-elected
'specials' came to his aid, who succeeded in procuring approach to a
clear course. Mr. Hussey then took his seat anew, and his machine cut
down a breadth of wheat from end to end of the field. It seemed to us to
do its work neatly and well. The wheat was cleverly delivered from the
teeth of the reaper, and handed over to the binders by the rake."


To William Dray and Company.

"Stockton-on-Tees, September 27th, 1851.

"Sir--Having been in communication with you relative to the trial of your
Reaper against McCormick's, and feeling deeply interested in the
introduction of the new implement into this district, particularly one of
so much importance as a Reaping Machine, I think it is not probably out
of place in me if I give you the result of my observations during the two
trials which have taken place. From the fact that McCormick's Machine
obtained the prize at the Great Exhibition (though I do not _pin my
faith_ upon awards made by Agricultural and other societies) the
letter of Mr. Pusey's, in the _Royal Agricultural Society's
Journal_, the various newspaper reports, etc., etc., it was natural
for me to be predisposed in favor of McCormick's Machine; indeed Mr. M.
had a prestige in his favor, which of course operated against the 'Little
Hussey.' Previous to starting, at Marton, on Thursday, the gentlemen
representing McCormick's machine expressed themselves desirous of testing
the machines early in the morning when the dew was on, believing that
their machine would cut the grain under such circumstances, and that
yours would not. Well, on Thursday we had a deluge rain, the surface of
the land was very soft, and the corn very wet. Everybody there was
astonished to see your machine brought up the field at a trot, cutting
its way to the admiration of all present; it not only cut _to_ the
leaning corn, but it cut cross over the corn leaning to the left of the
postillion (I presume I must call him). McCormick's machine then
_attempted_ to start (he made two or three attempts) but the
attendant confessed it was impossible to do so. That there might be no
mistake about it, your representatives proposed that their machines
should go up again; the jury said 'No! we are satisfied that your machine
can cut it under the present circumstances,' and so ended Thursday's
trial."


From the Gateshead Observer, October 4.

"We left the members and friends of this society, on Friday, the 26th
ult. on the Show-ground at Middlesbrough, immersed in rain. The scene now
shifts to the Townhall, where, in a handsome and spacious apartment, we
find them assembled in the evening, to dinner, to the number of 150, with
the Earl of Zetland in the chair, and in the vice-chair Mr. John Vaughan,
of the firm of Bolckow & Vaughan, iron-masters and manufacturers. His
lordship was supported by the Rev. W. F. Wharton, of Birmingham, and
Messrs. J. T. Wharton, Henry Pease, G. D. Trotter, Isaac Wilson, George
Coates, J. W. Pease, George Reade, John Pierson, etc.; and the vice-chair
by Messrs. C. Dryden, W. Fallows, R. Chilton, etc. In the body of the
hall were the leading inhabitants of the town and neighborhood; also, Mr.
Burgess and Mr. Samuelson (who had come to the meeting with Mr.
McCormick's reaping machine), Mr. Hussey, the inventor of the reaper
which bears his name, and Mr. Pierce and Mr. Stevens (on the part of
Messrs. Dray & Co., agents for Mr. Hussey).

"On the removal of the cloth, the noble Chairman (behind whose seat was
inscribed on the wall in conspicuous characters, 'Success to the
Cleveland Agricultural Society--Eighteenth Anniversary') gave the
customary loyal toasts, and took occasion to observe that had it not been
for the Exhibition of Industry, projected by Prince Albert, the 'Reaping
Machine,' from which he anticipated great benefits to agriculture, would
not have been introduced into this country. (Applause.)

"The Earl of Zetland again referred to the reaping machine. Such an aid
to agriculture, his lordship observed, was needed in Cleveland and
elsewhere.

"Mr. J. T. Wharton, of Skelton Castle, said he had never witnessed so
much enthusiasm in an agricultural district as was displayed in
connection with the reaping machine. Had the day been fine the number of
spectators present yesterday (Thursday) would have been at least fourfold
what it was. Bad as the weather was, not only was there a large muster of
members of the society, but 803 persons, many of them from a considerable
distance, paid sixpence each for admission to the ground. The trial of
the rival machines was, unfortunately, so short, and conducted under such
adverse circumstances, that it was impossible to pronounce any opinion as
to their relative merits; but what he saw of Hussey's was as satisfactory
as he could expect. (Applause.)

"Mr. George Reade, of Hutton Lowcross, said, had it not been for the
boisterous weather, the receipts of the Society at Ormesby and
Middlesbrough would have been marvelous. As it was, there was a large
assemblage to witness the trial of the American reaping machines, and
they were regarded with an anxious desire that they might succeed.
Indeed, let any ingenious mechanic--he cared not whether he was English,
Scotch, Irish, American or German--come before a jury of the farmers of
Cleveland with an implement or machine for the improvement of
Agriculture, and it would be judged with candor, impartiality and
uprightness, and the inventor should go home satisfied that he had
experienced fair play. (Applause.)

"Mr. Isaac Wilson proposed the health of 'The Strangers.' To those
gentlemen the members were greatly indebted for their attendance. Had the
weather permitted, they would all have experienced much pleasure from an
inspection of the celebrated reaping machines in action, and the
ingenious draining plough of Mr. Fowler, which did him very much credit.
(The toast was drank with musical honors.)

"Mr. Pierce, the representative of Dray & Co., being called upon to
respond, rose and said, bad as the weather had been, he had been
delighted with his visit to Middlesbrough. The kindness of the
inhabitants soon made him no stranger. He was not four and twenty hours
in the place before he fraternized with the whole parish. (Laughter.) He
rejoiced that Mr. Hussey's reaping machine was now in the hands of a jury
of Cleveland farmers. It would have a fair, honest, impartial trial; and
what more could an Englishman desire. (Applause.) He thanked the company
for the honor which they had conferred upon their visitors from a
distance, and wished continued success to their flourishing society.
(Applause.)

[Sidenote: Mr. Hussey's Toast to England]

"Mr. Hussey was next called upon, and said that he had for many years
been building machines in America. If he had had the least idea of the
interest which England would take in the reaping of crops by machinery,
it would have been a difficult thing to keep him on the other side of the
Atlantic; and he knew not, now, after the reception which he had met
with, how he should ever get home again. (Applause and laughter.)

"Mr. Steevens, Dray & Co.'s engineer, was also called upon to rise, and
stated that his employers had purchased Mr. Hussey's machine because they
saw it to be the best, and they would meet every competitor in the three
kingdoms, fearless of the result. (Cheers.)

"[It should be stated that Messrs. Fowler, Burgess, Samuelson,[9] etc.,
had by this time left the hall, and therefore could not be called upon.]

      [9] McCormick's agents.

"Mr. Parrington, having read the award, announced that a second trial of
McCormick's and Hussey's reaping machines would be made, if the weather
were favorable, on the following morning (Saturday), at 9 o'clock, at Mr.
Fawcitt's farm. The jury, appointed by the committee, would give no
opinion on the trial of the previous day (Thursday). That would go for
nothing. They would devote the whole of next day, if necessary, to a
full, fair, and satisfactory trial of the two machines. (Applause.)

"On Saturday morning, the weather was so far favorable that there was no
rain. The trial, therefore, took place. There was a numerous gathering of
land-owners, farmers, laborers, etc., but not so crowded a muster as to
obstruct the experiment.

"The foreman of the jury, Mr. Thompson, being unavoidably absent, his
place was supplied by the Rev. W. F. Wharton, of Birmingham. Messrs.
Lister, Outhwaite, (J. and T. P.) Booth, Wetherell, Phillips, and Dobson,
were also absent. Their places were filled by Mr. William Morley,
Dishforth; Mr. Thomas Parrington, Marton; Mr. J. T. Wharton, Shelton
Castle; Mr. Wm. Hill, Staunton; Mr. Joseph Coulson, Sexhow; Mr. Joseph
Harrison, White House; Mr. John Mason Hopper, Marton.

"The trial commenced in a level enclosure, adjoining the road from
Stockton and Middlesbrough to Ormesby Hall (the residence of Sir Wm.
Pennyman, Bart.). The wheat was laid. We have seen a crop in worse
condition, but not often. The straw was damp and soft. The soil was loamy
and light, and the field free from wet; it was to Mr. Fawcitt's credit
that he was able to place such a field at the service of the society
under the circumstances; still, the earth was in a state to clog the
wheels of the reapers. Altogether, the test was a severe one for the
competitors. Mr. Samuelson, Mr. Burgess, and Mr. D. C. Mackenzie (the son
of an emigrant from Ivernesse) were in charge of Mr. McCormick's machine.
The other was in the hands of the inventor himself, Mr. Hussey, and of
Mr. Pierce and Mr. Steevens (who represented the agents, Messrs. Dray &
Co.)

"The Rev. Mr. Wharton (the jury, competitors, etc., having gathered round
him on the field, on Saturday morning) announced that after the lapse of
an hour, when the corn would be in such a condition that Mr. Fawcitt, as
he had just said, would, under ordinary circumstances, reap it himself,
the trial would commence.

"The question was, now, which of the two machines should begin. A 'toss'
gave the chance to Mr. Pierce, and he requested Mr. Burgess to lead off.

"McCormick's machine then got into action, taking the crop in the most
favorable manner--that is, leaning toward the knife. Passing along the
field (which was from two to three hundred yards in length) it cut down a
breadth of little more than four feet. The corn being laid, the flier, of
course did not come into practical operation; nor was it necessary that
it should do so--the elements having already done its work. The corn was
well cut--the stubble a little too high.

"Another breadth or two having been cut, Hussey's machine followed, and
cut some breadths--somewhat wider than McCormick's, and closer to the
ground.

"Mackenzie, when we pointed out the shorter stubble of his rival,
admitted the fact, but said there would be no difficulty--not the
slightest--in bringing Mr. McCormick's knife nearer to the ground. In
America, however, where the straw is comparatively of little or no value,
the stubble is no object, and there are some advantages in cutting high.

"A backer of McCormick's machine (and many bets have been laid on the two
machines) urged that Hussey's would spoil clover when going among wheat.
The reply was, that Hussey's knife could be raised or depressed at
pleasure.

"The next test was cutting the crop across ridge and furrow, so that the
corn was lying neither to nor from the knife, but sidewise. Both the
machines cut the corn under these circumstances--Hussey's the cleaner of
the two.

"The jury then required the experiment to be made along the field, with
the corn lying from the knife.

"Mr. Hussey consented, and the machine succeeded in cutting the
corn--leaving a tolerable stubble, but not so short and regular as
before.

"McCormick's machine was then tried, and failed. As it scoured over the
corn, making sad havoc, there were loud cries of 'Stop! stop! you're
wasting it!'

"Barley was next cut, with much the same result. In this case, Mr. Hussey
adjusted his platform for discharging the corn at the side.

[Sidenote: Hussey Wins 6 to 4]

"The binders being summoned before the jury, and asked which of the two
machines they preferred, so far as their particular department was
concerned, decided, 4 for McCormick's, 6 for Hussey's.

"Clover was now to be tried, but at this stage of the proceedings we left
the field. Clover-cutting, we should state, formed no part of the
competition. The agreement merely refers to wheat and barley. McCormick's
machine is not intended for clover-cutting; but some of the land owners
and farmers were anxious to see clover cut by Hussey's machine. Mr.
Thompson, we understand, had requested his proxy to have the experiment
made. We were told on the ground that the machine had already been tried
on clover at Newport, near Middlesbrough, and 'cut it well--if the
weather had been dry it would have cut it beautifully.'

"It was pleasant to mark the anxiety and watchfulness of the gentlemen in
charge of the two machines. Mr. McCormick suffered no loss from his
absence, he was so admirably represented; and in Messrs. Pierce and
Steevens, Dray & Co. had invaluable agents--on the Thursday in
particular, when a storm, which ravaged land and sea, could not deter
them or Mr. Hussey, from practically attesting the reaper's prowess in
the field. The trial, throughout, was conducted with a fidelity to self
which would not throw a point away, and a courtesy to rivals which should
ever mark honorable competition."


From a Correspondent.

"Stockton, Monday, September 29.--A report reached me, after I left the
farm, that Hussey's machine cut the barley very much better than
McCormick's. It came to me, however, through parties who might fairly be
suspected of a bias, and therefore I kept my judgment in suspense until I
could obtain information on which I could more implicitly rely. This I
have now got. I have been to the farm again today, and made inquiries of
persons who saw the completion of the trial. McCormick's machine did not
cut the barley so well as Hussey's. It cut it much too high; and as the
crop was very much laid, the heads only, in many cases were cut off. We
had Hussey's machine in operation to-day, both on barley and wheat, and
made better work than on Saturday. Mr. Fawcitt worked it with the
greatest ease. I think he would soon beat the inventor himself. Even I,
townsman as I am, made fair work; and in an hour or two's practice, I
would engage to cut a crop in a manner not to be found fault with. You
may safely say that any ordinary workman about a farm would be able to
manage the machine; and when I say this of Hussey's, it is also true of
McCormick's. The one may be a better machine than the other, but the
merits of either of them may be brought into practical action by a
laborer of average intelligence and skill. It is the opinion of farmers
and others with whom I have conversed, that the saving per acre, by the
use of Hussey's machine, would be about 5s.

"At the close of the contest on Saturday, the knives of the two machines
were placed in the hands of Mr. Robinson, engineer to Mr. Bellerby, of
York, that he might report thereon, and on the machinery generally, to
the Jury.

"Wednesday, October 1.--The Marquis of Londonderry, and several other
gentlemen, have visited Mr. Fawcitt's farm, to see the machine at work.

"The laurels so recently placed upon the brow of Mr. McCormick have been
plucked off--not wholly, but in great part--by his fellow countryman, Mr.
Hussey.

"We would enlarge upon this theme, but our report has left us little
room. We would only say, that while the farmers of Cleveland, and of the
Island generally, are turning their attention to agricultural
improvements--by reaping machines, draining ploughs, and steam
ploughs--we would say to them, in the words of Mr. Hussey to the
Cleveland horse-jockey, when his machine was ready for its work, '_Now,
then, go ahead!_'"


REPORT OF THE JURY

"The Jury regret exceedingly the most unfavorable state of the weather on
the days of trial (a perfect hurricane raging during the whole of the
first day), and their consequent inability to make so full and
satisfactory a trial as they could have wished.

"The machines were tested on a crop of wheat, computed at 25 bushels per
acre, very short in the straw, and if possible, more laid than the wheat.

"The Jury, taking the different points submitted to their consideration,
in the order as mentioned:

"1. Their unanimous opinion, that Mr. Hussey's machine, as exhibited by
Messrs. Wm. Dray & Co., cut the corn in the best manner, especially
across ridge and furrow, and when the machine was working in the
direction of the corn laid.

"2. By a majority of eleven to one, that Mr. Hussey's machine caused the
least waste.

"3. Taking the breadth of the two machines into consideration, that of
Mr. Hussey did most work.

"4. That Mr. Hussey's machine leaves the cut corn in the best order for
gathering and binding. This question was submitted to the laborers
employed on the occasion, and decided by them, as above, by a majority of
6 to 4.

"5. Their unanimous opinion that Mr. Hussey's machine is best adapted for
ridge and furrow.

"6. This question was referred by the Jury to Mr. Robinson, foreman to
Messrs. Bellerby, of York, a practical mechanic of acknowledged ability,
whose report is appended below.

"7. That Mr. Hussey's machine at first cost is less price.

"8, 9. The Jury decline to express a decided opinion on these points in
consequence of the state of the weather.

"The trials took place on the farm of Robert Fawcitt, of Ormsby, near
Marlbro'-on-Tees, who in the most liberal and disinterested spirit
allowed his crops to be trodden down and damaged to a very great extent,
especially on the 25th, when in spite of the storm an immense crowd
assembled to witness the trials.

"The Jury cannot conclude their report without expressing the great
pleasure they have derived from seeing two machines brought into
competition that were able to do such very good work, and also at
witnessing the friendly, straightforward, and honorable way in which the
exhibitors of the respective machines met on this occasion.

"Signed on behalf of the Jury,
"W. F. WHARTON, Foreman."


MR. ROBINSON'S REPORT ON QUESTION 6.

"Having carefully examined both machines, and given the subject due
consideration, I am of opinion that McCormick's Reaping Machine, as at
present made, is most liable to get out of order.

"(Signed) THOMAS ROBINSON.
"York, 30th September, 1851."


From the London Mercantile Journal.

"_The Great Exhibition and Transatlantic Superiority Over European
Ingenuity--American Reaping Machines._--The close of the Crystal
Palace has given rise to many panegyrics, and we would not for one moment
detract from its merits; it has been deservedly the admiration of the
world, and visited by thousands of its inhabitants. Brought into life by
the most eminent men, and supported by royalty; the means taken were such
as no private individual could have accomplished; every exertion was used
to obtain the choicest relics that the earth could produce; almost every
country vied in exhibiting the arts and treasures of its products and
manufactures, and were with one exception considered eminently
successful. The United States of America, however, was thought to be
deficient, and in one or two cases some rather strong and even coarse
remarks were indulged in. But what are the results? France can boast of
the richness of its silks and artificial manufactures, and England of its
machinery; but we find that our own newspapers are filled with admiration
at the inventions of Brother Jonathan. We shall only slightly touch upon
the sensation produced by the splendid performance of the American yacht,
and the dexterity displayed in the lock-picking, which was previously
deemed impracticable. But it may be said that these are trifling matters
in a national point of view; still, facts have been elicited by these
apparent trifling incidents, for we find that the superior build of the
little American yacht involves a principle--it being now admitted that in
nautical matters the Americans are equal, if not superior, to other
nations in their construction of their merchant vessels, and also in the
equipment of their ships of war. On the land they are equally successful;
their reaping machines have astonished our agriculturists. We extract
from the _Gateshead Observer_, and other local papers, the
surprising performance of Hussey's and McCormick's machines. Our readers
are aware that there are two rival parties competing their powers on
British ground, and without entering into the question as to which of the
two performed their work in the best manner, we copy the result of the
trial. The _Durham Advertiser_ states that the performance took
place at Middlesbro', and says:

[Sidenote: 19 Out of 20 Favored the Hussey Reaper]

"'Few subjects have created a greater sensation in the agricultural world
than the recent introduction into the country of the reaping machines of
Mr. McCormick, and the subsequent appearance, of a rival, of no inferior
description, in a similar implement from Mr. Hussey. The interesting
trial of the two in competition, intended to have taken place on Thursday
last, was postponed, in consequence of the torrents of rain, until
Saturday, when, under the superintendence of a very efficient jury
empanelled to decide the respective merits of the two implements, the
contest came off. The compact form of Hussey's implement was in its
favor, though from the notoriety of McCormick's at Mr. Mechi's farm, the
general preference was at first on his side. McCormick's machine was
first tried against the inclination of the corn, and completed its
portion in very good style, leaving the sheaves in a handy manner at the
side of the furrow. Hussey's completed a similar breadth, but deposited
the sheaves behind, and consequently several binders were required to
follow the machine to clear the course for cutting the next breadth, an
imperfection, which, however, it was understood could be easily remedied,
and the back deliver replaced by a side one. This breadth was closer cut
than the one executed by McCormick's reaper. The two were then tried
across the ridge, where Hussey's implement carried the palm, McCormick's
leaving a very considerable portion of the straw standing behind it; and
the last trial upon the wheat, in the direction of the lean of the wheat,
Hussey's machine did its work very fairly, while McCormick's was obliged
to be stopped in its course, after having taken the heads of the wheat,
but left the whole of the straw standing. At this time two opinions did
not exist among the company present--Hussey's being the favorite. The
trial was then carried to some barley, where Hussey's again succeeded in
obtaining public favor. The more compact form of Hussey's implement, as
well as the superiority of the clipping action over the cutting action of
McCormick's, entitle it to a greater share of public favor, and as the
advantages of a side delivery can be easily applied to it, it will
doubtless become the more general in use amongst the farmers. We cannot,
however, but think that some mechanical process might be substituted for
raking the sheaf from the receiving board, and this with a few other
mechanical improvements, would we think, make Hussey's reaping machine a
perfect, useful and economical agricultural implement. The latter may be
also advantageously applied to the cutting of clover crops, which is
quite out of the question with the farmer. Another Correspondent on this
subject says: "The jury did not on Saturday announce their decision, nor
have they yet made a report. Nineteen farmers out of twenty who witnessed
the trial were in favor of Hussey's machine.'"

"The _Gateshead Observer_ remarks: 'The great Cleveland contest
between the two American reaping machines, respectively invented by Mr.
McCormick, of Chicago, and Mr. Hussey, of Baltimore, originally appointed
for Thursday, the 25th ult., frustrated, for a time by the deluge and
hurricane of that disastrous day, came off on Saturday, the 27th. The
trial was one of great severity, the crops of wheat and barley were laid,
and the straw damp and soft. The laurels so recently placed upon the brow
of Mr. McCormick have been plucked off--not wholly, but in great part, by
his fellow countryman, Mr. Hussey. Both the machines proved their ability
to do good work, but Mr. Hussey's attested its superiority; and the
English farmer has now seen, thanks to Prince Albert and the Exhibition
of Works of Industry, that his corn and grasses, hitherto slowly and
laboriously reaped with the sickle and the scythe, may now be plained off
the land, in five feet breadth, as rapidly as a horse can trot.'"

[Sidenote: A "Considerable Doubt"]

"'A trial has taken place before the Cleveland Agricultural Society of
the respective merits of McCormick's and Hussey's American Reaping
Machines, and the report of the jury of practical men, appointed by the
consent of both parties to decide the question of merit is favorable to
the latter implement. _This decision throws considerable doubt upon the
justice of the award of a great medal at the exhibition to
McCormick's._'--_London Times, October 7._"

Following upon its success at Cleveland, the proprietors were invited to
exhibit the machine at the Barnard Castle Agricultural Society, Lord
Harry Vane, _president_.


"Barnard Castle, October 8, 1851.

"The undersigned President, Vice Presidents, and members of the Barnard
Castle Agricultural Society and others who have witnessed the working of
the American Reaping Machine, invented by Mr. Hussey, _do certify their
unqualified approval of its operations and entire success_.

"Lord Harry Vane, President.
W. F. Wharton, Vice President.
John Mitchell, V. P., Forcett Hall, Yorkshire, Esq.
J. S. Edgar, M. D., Barnard Castle, Esq.
John Dickonson Holmes, Barnard Castle, Solicitor.
George P. Harrison, Forcett, Yorkshire, Esq., Farmer.
Edward Scaith, Keverston, near Darlington, Esq., Farmer, and Assistant
    Draining Commissioner.
Thomas Robinson, Hutton Hall, near Richmond, Yorkshire, Esq., Farmer.
Richard Kay, Forcett Valley, near Darlington, Esq., Farmer.
William Harrison, Greta Bridge, Yorkshire, Esq., Farmer.
Thomas Carter, Scales, near Richmond, Esq., Farmer.
Jno Whitfield, London, Esq.
Rev. Thomas Boys Croome, Scotland.
William Watson, Jr., Barnard Castle, Solicitor.
J. R. Monkhouse, Barnard Castle, Manufacturer.
Samuel Nelson, of Scaife House, near Staindrop, Durham, Esq., Farmer.
William Thompson, Lanehead, near Ovington, Yorkshire, Esq., Farmer.
John Ethwaite, Bainesse, near Catterick, Yorkshire, Farmer.
Rev. George Dugard, Barnard Castle, Incumbent of Yorkshire, Farmer.
William Watson, Secretary of the Barnard Agricultural Association."


From the Darlington and Stockton [England] Times, October 11.

BARNARD CASTLE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY.

MR. HUSSEY'S REAPING MACHINE.

"Great interest was excited in Barnardcastle and its neighborhood on
Tuesday last, by the announcement that Mr. Hussey's reaping machine would
be exhibited at the forthcoming meeting of the Barnardcastle Agricultural
Society; and that a trial of its powers would be made previous to the
meeting. Accordingly, on Tuesday last, the machine was brought into
operation in a field of barley, belonging to Mr. George White, of
Stainton, near Barnardcastle, which it cut admirably well. The Rev. W. F.
Wharton, and other gentlemen in the vicinity, besides a vast number of
farmers, were present. The Judges on the occasion were H. S. Thompson,
Esq., of Moat Hall (one of the Agricultural Jury of the Great
Exhibition); W. Lister, Esq., of Dunsa Bank; and T. Robinson, Esq., of
Hutton. Luncheon was provided for a large party in an out-building near
the scene of the experiments, and it is a fact worthy of notice that
after dinner Mr. Thompson proposed the health of Mr. Hussey (who was
present) with great fervour, and spoke of the disadvantages under which
Mr. Hussey's Machine had labored when tried against McCormick's for the
Great Exhibition Medal; Mr. Hussey not being in the country at that time,
and no one being present who understood the adjusting or working of the
implement. Mr. Thompson said he was now so thoroughly satisfied of its
great merits that he would do his best to get a medal awarded to it.
After luncheon, the machine was taken to the grounds of Mr. Adamson, and
tried upon a field of oats, which were so laid as to form a very severe
test to the machine, but it nevertheless was successful there also. The
party retired greatly pleased with it, and some of the most wary
agriculturists ordered machines upon the ground. On Wednesday morning a
large assemblage of agriculturists met on the farm of Mr. F. Atkinson,
Westwood, Startforth, to see the machine cut a field of wheat, and there
again the experiment yielded all that even its inventor could desire. We
understand that a large number of orders were given for machines by the
farmers present, which is perhaps the very best test of their views in
the matter. The general impression seemed to be that it would prove of
incalculable value to the agricultural interest.

[Sidenote: A Toast to Mr. Hussey]

"At about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, a large party sat down to a
sumptuous dinner at the King's Head Inn. Lord Harry Vane presided and the
Rev. W. F. Wharton occupied the vice-chair. After dinner the usual loyal
toasts having been proposed, the vice-chair proposed the health of Mr.
Hussey; that gentleman, he said, had contributed to their gratification
and interest in bringing his invention there for trial; the result of
that trial had exceeded everything they could have previously imagined or
hoped; and therefore he begged they would excuse him for proposing this
health so early, as Mr. Hussey and his agents's representative, Mr.
Pierce, had to leave by the first train from Darlington, which they had
then but sufficient time to reach. He proposed the healths of Mr. Hussey
and of the enterprising firm, Messrs. Dray & Co., who had undertaken to
bring that machine into the British market. The toast was drank with
honors. Mr. Hussey briefly returned thanks.

"After some further proceedings, the Vice-Chairman proposed the health of
the President. Lord Harry Vane responded.

[Sidenote: "A Worthy, Modest and Unassuming Man"]

"The healths of the Vice-Presidents were proposed. Mr. Mitchell briefly
responded. Mr. Wharton, in acknowledging the toast, took the opportunity
of again bringing before the meeting the merits of the invention which
had been the object of that day's attraction. It had been most
unfortunate that when the trial took place for the prize of the great
exhibition, Mr. Hussey had not arrived in this country--nobody knew how
it was managed, whilst McCormick's was properly attended to. Mr. Hussey's
machine did no work, and Mr. McCormick took the medal. No sooner did Mr.
Hussey arrive than he prayed for a further trial, but the Jury could not
grant it. All difficulty was removed by Mr. McCormick throwing down the
gauntlet. The trial came off in Cleveland--the result was clear and
satisfactory in favor of Mr. Hussey's machine as decidedly superior. Mr.
Thompson, of Moat Hall, one of the Great Exhibition Jury, was also one of
the Judges in Cleveland, and was so satisfied on the subject that he
left, determined to urge for a medal for Mr. Hussey. It must be a source
of pleasure to all to find that justice was thus about to be done to a
worthy, modest and unassuming man."


From the Darlington and Stockton Times, October 11, 1851.

THE REAPING MACHINES AT BARNARDCASTLE.

"_To the Editor of the Darlington and Stockton Times:_

"Sir--I beg to trouble you with a few particulars of Mr. Hussey's
American Reaping Machine, which I yesterday saw working in a field near
Barnardcastle. I am not a farmer, and of course cannot be thoroughly
_au fait_ at describing an agricultural implement, nor am I
sufficiently versed in mechanics to explain to you the construction of
the machine in all its details, but of the result I can speak, and that
with confidence.

"Drawn by two horses, a man seated on the near side horse as driver, this
wonderful implement was drawn with perfect ease, at more than the rate of
three miles an hour, round and round a field, partly in wheat and partly
in barley, cutting a breadth of corn in its progress with a regularity
and evenness that was surprising. No straggling stalks of corn were left,
none of the slovenly irregular work too often seen where manual labor is
employed was to be discovered; on the contrary, the field after shearing,
looked nearly as smooth and even as a kitchen floor or turnpike road. The
farmer has now no longer occasion to be behind the reapers, dinning in
their ears, 'shear low"--'now do shear low;' for this machine, with a
very simple adjustment, will cut the corn as low as he can possibly
require. A seat on the machine is provided for a man, who, with a large
rake, and with motion resembling the pushing of a punt, removes the corn
from the machine as it is cut, and leaves it for the binders to put
together in sheafs.

"The assistance of two men and two horses are thus all that is required
to draw and to guide this wonderful sickle--and so manned, it will cut
with the ease and regularity I have described, from perhaps ten to twelve
acres in the working day. Nor as far as I could see, or learn from the
observation of others, does there appear to be any drawback against its
general adoption. Its price (L21) is not exorbitant--its construction is
not so complex as to cause a fear of frequent repairs being required; men
of the common run of agricultural laborers are quite competent to go with
it, and the work of drawing it is not distressing to the horses. Neither
does the nature of the ground appear to be much an object, for it
traveled as well over ridge and furrow as it did upon a level.

"Nothing could be more unanimous than the approval of which the machine
met with from all who saw its work, and I was informed that nine machines
were ordered on the ground. Among the purchasers was the Duke of
Cleveland, who, with Lord Harry Vane, was present and examined its
working and construction minutely. The curiosity excited by the machine
was great, and an immense number of people visited the ground during the
two days. Noblemen and gentlemen, farmers and farm laborers, tradesmen
and mechanics, men and women, flocked to see the implement which from the
other side of the Atlantic has come to effect so important a revolution
in the labor of the harvest field, and all were agreed that Brother
Jonathan, though still a young man, had some clever notions in his head,
and that John Bull, in the case of the reaping machine, would not be
above taking advantage of his intelligence. I am, etc.,

"A. B."


From the London Daily News.

HUSSEY'S REAPING MACHINE--TRIAL BEFORE PRINCE ALBERT.

"The celebrated battle of the Ganges hardly excited more interest in the
railway world than the battle of the Reaping machines has lately created
in the agricultural world; nor is the result perhaps very much less
important in the latter case than in the former.

[Sidenote: Hussey's by Far the Best]

"Of the recent inventions for diminishing the cost of production, the
most remarkable are undoubtedly the Reaping machines of Messrs. Hussey
and McCormick. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call them
importations than inventions, since both have been in use for a
considerable time in America; and amongst the benefits arising from the
Exhibition, it is certainly not the least that it has introduced to the
agriculturist of Great Britain implements of the highest practical
utility, which might otherwise have remained forever exclusively in the
hands of their brethren across the Atlantic. It will be remembered that a
trial of the two rival machines took place last summer, at Mr. Mechi's
model farm in Essex, having been directed by the royal commissioners,
with the view of determining the comparative merits of the two
instruments, whose patentees were competitors for the forthcoming medal
prizes. At that time Mr. Hussey, the American inventor of the machine
called after his name, had not arrived in the country. The weather, too,
was very unpropitious for the trial, notwithstanding which a very large
number of gentlemen were present. The machines were tried upon a field of
wheat, and the result was such as to convince all present of the
superiority, in every point of view, of McCormick's machine--a conviction
which was subsequently confirmed by the fact of the Exhibition medal
being awarded exclusively to the patentee of that machine. The tables,
however, were soon to be turned. Mr. Hussey arrived in England; a
challenge having been given by the agents of Mr. McCormick, it was
accepted by Mr. Hussey, and his English agent, Mr. Dray; and, after a
fair contest before the Cleveland Society, at Middlesbro', near
Stockton-on-Tees, on the 25th and 27th of September, a jury of twelve
agriculturists pronounced a verdict in favor of the unmedalled machine.
They decided that of the two machines, Hussey's had the preponderance of
advantages--that it cut corn in the best manner, caused the least waste,
did the most work in a given time, left the cut corn in the best order
for gathering and binding, was the best adapted for ridge and furrow, was
the least liable to get out of repair, and was the least price at first
cost. On the two other points submitted to them, namely, which machine
required the least amount of horse labor, and which the least amount of
manual labor, the jury declined to express a decided opinion, in
consequence of the state of the weather."

[Illustration: Bronze medal won by Mr. Hussey with his Reaper in England
in 1851.]

[Sidenote: Arrival of the Prince]

"There have been many other trials of Hussey's machine in different parts
of the country, and the result has been so far uniformly satisfactory.
Amongst these we have now to mention a very interesting one which took
place by appointment last Saturday, at Windsor, in the presence of his
Royal Highness, Prince Albert, originating in a correspondence between
General Wemyss, on behalf of the Prince, and Messrs. Dray & Co. of
Swan-lane, the agents for Mr. Hussey. The spot selected for the trial was
behind the statue of George III, at the end of the Long Walk, fern--of
which there is an abundance in that locality--being the article on which
the machine had to operate. The Prince having from an early hour in the
morning been engaged in shooting in the vicinity of the statue, at
half-past twelve, resigned his gun, and proceeded on horseback, in
company with General Wemyss and Col. Seymour, to the spot appointed for
the trial of the machine. Dismounting from his horse, his Royal Highness
saluted briefly and gracefully the assembled company, and especially Mr.
Hussey and Mr. Dray. He then asked a few general questions respecting the
history of the machine, and observed that as the ground selected was very
uneven (it was in fact remarkably so) the trial would be a good one.
After a brief delay, the gear being declared in order, on went the
machine, drawn by two strong horses, and heedless of ruts and hillocks in
its course, which was very rapid, bringing down every thing it
encountered cleanly and completely, including two or three slices of turf
at least a foot long, and more than an inch thick.

"The performances of the machine were not confined to one single course.
A considerable amount of work was performed in the most satisfactory
manner, Mr. Hussey himself sitting on the box at the side, and throwing
aside what was cut down in the manner best adapted for gathering and
binding. Indeed the work was not confined to the fern; a rabbit which was
not accustomed to this species of interference was startled and cruelly
lacerated before it had time to escape.

[Sidenote: A Royal Order]

"At the close of the trial, his Royal Highness gave a practical proof of
his favorable opinion by ordering two of the machines for himself, one
for Windsor and the other for Osborne. He then, after expressing his
gratification, rode back to the game-keepers and resumed his gun. After
he had left, the machine operated well upon some rushes.

"It may not be out of place to state here that Mr. Dray's explanation of
the failure of the Hussey machine at Tiptree Hall (Mr. Mechi's farm) is
that it was entirely owing to its not being properly managed. On that
occasion, he says, the person in charge of it was simply a porter at the
Exhibition, who, not understanding the matter, neglected to clear away
the wheat as it was cut down, in consequence of which the action of the
machine was unavoidably and fatally impeded. We witnessed the result at
Mr. Mechi's, and certainly there was no such fault on Saturday. The
progress of the machine was notwithstanding the unevenness of the ground,
rapid and satisfactory; and it was stated as a fact that on a level
ground the horses used in drawing may trot, not only without weakening or
impeding the action of the knives, but even with advantages, as by that
means the cutting requires increased precision and force."

[Sidenote: A Royal Verdict]

The following is Prince Albert's certificate:

    "Windsor Castle, Nov. 13, 1851.

    "Sir--In answer to your letter addressed to Gen. Wemyss, I have
    received the commands of his Royal Highness, Prince Albert, to say,
    that so far as he could judge of Mr. Hussey's Reaping Machine, from
    its performance in the high fern at Windsor Park, his Royal Highness
    is disposed to form a very favorable opinion of it, and has ordered
    one[10] in consequence for the use of his own farm. His Royal
    Highness can however give no opinion as to the relative merits of
    this machine in comparison with those of others which he has not
    seen at work.

    "I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

    "GREY."

      [10] The Prince ordered two Machines, one for Windsor and one for
      Isle of Wight.


From Maidstone & South Eastern Gazette, October 21, 1851.

WEST KENT AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY'S PLOUGHING MATCH.

HUSSEY'S AMERICAN REAPER.

"A distinguishing feature at this society's meeting on Thursday, the 16th
inst., was an exhibition of the capabilities of the above machine. The
session of the year of course prevented a display of its powers on
anything in the shape of grain, indeed great difficulty was found in
procuring even a green crop on which to operate. Undaunted by this fact,
the inventor was determined to show to the anxious hundreds assembled the
extent of the advantages to be derived from the use of his reaper. At two
o'clock the machine was set to work upon a field of clover, short and
light (as may be supposed), where its performance was effectual as it
possibly could be, exciting a considerable amount of surprise as well as
gratification. It was then taken to a piece of marsh land, where clumps
of stout rushes in many places were growing in thick masses, presenting
the appearance of stunted grain. The machine passed over this marsh,
cutting the rushes with the same facility as if it had been corn, leaving
the stubble about four inches long and very regular, giving also a good
representation of the manner in which the sheaves of wheat, etc., are
usually delivered. Both these operations, but especially the latter, were
considered severe contests of the capabilities of the machine. Taking all
the circumstances into consideration, the performance was far beyond all
reasonable expectations. It was a question whether the excellent work of
the 58 competing ploughs, or the extraordinary novelty of Hussey's
machine in operation, added most to the gratification of the large
assemblage of the leading agriculturists of Kent."


From the Kentish Gazette, November 11, 1851.

"In addition to the interest naturally felt by all who live on and by the
soil in its proper cultivation, there was an unusual degree of attraction
in the fact that a reaping machine by Mr. Hussey (the celebrated American
Machinist) would be tested upon seven acres of mustard adjoining the
ploughing field. The reaping was commenced about twelve o'clock, and
continued for a considerable period. The crop of mustard was wet, and by
no means calculated to favor the experiment. It was, however, after the
machine was properly arranged, cut down with great regularity; and at a
speed equal to four miles an hour it traversed the circuit of the field,
hewing its way through the mustard, quickly followed by a crowd of eager
observers, whose wondering gaze exhibited at once their astonishment and
admiration of its working. Occasionally the level of the cutters were
altered, so as to leave a greater or less length of stubble, which
evinced the accurate adjustment to which the machine could be brought.
Some portion of it was taken to pieces, and the whole of the arrangements
shown, which the farmers present displayed an eager anxiety to
investigate, and many were the questions proposed, and satisfactorily
answered by the talented inventor.

"We should mention that the undulation of the land does not impede its
operations in the least--as it was well observed by a gentleman present,
that where a cart could travel there this machine could also go, and
complete its design. No previous acquaintance with its principle is
necessary to be able to guide its operation, as was shown by Mr. Neame,
Jr., who mounted the platform and discharged the functions appertaining
to the party who removes the corn from the machine after it is cut, with
the greatest ease and precision. Indeed the most unqualified approval was
given by the gentlemen present, to the applicability of the reaping
machine to the purposes for which it is designed. We have thus entered
into minute particulars, because this is the first opportunity we have
had of witnessing the results of such an experiment, attended as it was
with every degree of satisfaction. Lord Sondes gave an order for one of
the machines, and we understand that three or four orders were given in
the course of the day.

"At the dinner which followed, the chairman gave 'Sir John Tylden and the
visitors.'

"Sir John Tylden, as a member as well as a visitor, replied to the toast,
and in a jocular strain animadverted on the suffering of the farmers of
Faversham, who were determined, like a celebrated regiment in the
service, to 'die hard.' He alluded to the reaping machine of Mr. Hussey,
which he characterized in contradistinction to that of Mr. McCormick's
and all others, as the universal reaping machine, of which he spoke in
highly approving terms, and passed a warm eulogium on its talented
inventor, and the country he represented, which in the space of 80 years
had risen from a wilderness to her now exalted position, and proud of her
Anglo-Saxon blood."






End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Obed Hussey, by Various

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OBED HUSSEY ***

***** This file should be named 19547.txt or 19547.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/5/4/19547/

Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net


Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.



*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).


Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.

1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
     License.  You must require such a user to return or
     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
     Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
     of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.

1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.


Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.


Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:
     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
     Chief Executive and Director
     gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate


Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

*** END: FULL LICENSE ***