TRIAL OF HORSE HAY FORKS. 31 



3. The quantity of hay each fork takes at a time. 



4. Does the fork grapple more hay than it can lift ? 



5. Does the fork carry its load to the mow without dropping 

 a portion of the hay ? 



6. The ability of the fork to distribute the hay on the mow. 



7. The ease with which the fork is unloaded. 



8. The space required for the fork to work in. 



9. The ability of the fork to deliver its load through a window 

 or door. 



10. Is the fork liable to drop its load when coming in contact 

 with an obstacle ? 



11. Does the fork drop the hay on the mow in good condition, 

 without rolling it up ? 



12. The ability of the fork to take up the hay clean from the 

 cart. 



13. The time required to unload a ton of hay. 



14. The ability of the fork to pitch coarse manure. 



15. The ability of the fork to pitch loose oats, barley, seed 

 clover, wheat, rye straw, bundles of straw of any kind, and stalks 

 of Indian corn. 



16. The ability of the fork to take up coarse and fine hay. 



17. Are the operators liable to injury when working the fork ? 



18. The simplicity of the fork. 



19. The strength and durability of the fork. 



20. The cost of fork, pulleys and ropes completed. 



List of Awards. 



The first award to class No. 1 was given to "Palmer's Excelsior 

 Sickle-tiued Fork," entered by Palmer & Wackerhagen, Hudson, 

 N. Y. 



The second prize in this class was awarded to John H. Chap- 

 man, Utica, N. Y. 



The first prize in class second (harpoon forks) was awarded to C. 

 C. Blodgett, Watertown, Jeiferson co., N. Y. 



The second prize in class No. 2 was awarded to S. E. & L. B. 

 Sprout, Muncy, Penn. 



These awards were subsequently confirmed by the Board of 

 Managers, which has sole charge of the distribution of prizes by 

 the Institute. 



