28 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE. 



'•Rogers' Harpoou Fork" was entered by D. B. Rogers, Pitts- 

 burgh, Penu. The harpoon fork threw out two claws made 

 of steel, in the form of a cat's claw, near the lower end of the fork, 

 which lifted the forkful of hay. The fork pitched off 1,382 lbs. of 

 hay in eight minutes. 



A. M. Halstead, New York city, entered " Halstead's Hay Fork," 

 w'hich is a two-tined iron fork, and the committee seemed favora- 

 bly impressed with the appearance of this little cheap and good 

 fork ; but, through some mismanagement, one tine was injured so 

 that the fork could not be used to remove the remainder of the 

 load. 



A "Case Harpoon Fork " was entered by E. Sharkley, Lewis- 

 burgh, Penn. The chief point of superiority in this fork consisted 

 in its self-adjustability, when being drawn back to the load, by 

 which the sharp point is held away from the operator on the load. 



"Walker's Improved Harpoon Fork " was entered by Wheeler, 

 Melick & Co., Albany, N. Y. This fork consists of tAvo parallel 

 bars of steel working closely together, having a hinged point 

 attached to the end of one bar. After it is thrust into the hay, 

 the point is turned to a right angle, for holding the hay. It was 

 estimated that this fork removed the heaviest forkful of all those 

 exhibited. 



We failed to get all the figures representing the weight of hay 

 pitched, and the time required to remove the loads. But that is 

 of trivial importance, as most of those who worked the forks were 

 novices at that kind of labor, and unable to display the ability of 

 the inventions. 



After the last fork had been tested, W. S. Carpenter called the 

 crowd to order, and introduced the chairman of the committee, 

 S. Edwards Todd, who said to them : " It affords me pleasure to 

 say to you that in our adjudication of the forks tested here, this 

 committee have aimed to be actuated by principles of the greatest 

 possible fairness and the strictest equity. In making up our 

 decision as to the merits and demerits of the various forks exhib- 

 ited, we shall not be influenced by fear, favor or compromise. 

 We are sworn attorneys for the toil-worn farmer. We do not 

 desire to denounce any manufacturer's fork, but we shall aim to 

 point out to the inquirer for labor-saving implements, the most 

 efficient labor-saving fork in our country. You cannot all have 

 the first premium, although almost every fork here to-day has 

 operated admirably. But I trust that when this committee come 



