Part 11

"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."

"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.

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.

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!

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."

"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."

"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.