Chapter 2

"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]