Obed Hussey Part 8

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 inc.u.mbrance with _his_ cutting apparatus, and soon laid it aside.

We will now examine another invention patented by C. H. McCormick, in 1847. We here a.s.sert 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 trespa.s.s 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 circ.u.mstances 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 r.e.t.a.r.ded 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]