Chapter 4

[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]