494 



FARMERS' REGISTER— MR. GARNETT'S ADDRESS. 



others: and has never failed, so far as I recollect, 

 to obtain li-om reputable ttirmers, some certificates 

 to sustain his claim. Now this cannot possibly be 

 true, (or there can be only one best among imple- 

 ments of similar kinds. But notwithslandmg this 

 fact, the claim of superiority — sustained as each 

 one generally has been — is a source of such great 

 perplexity to every farmer who has never had an 

 opportunity of seeing all tiiose conllicting claims 

 fairl}' tested, that many — like the ass between two 

 bundles of hay — arc prevented from making any 

 choice at all. Such I acknowledge, was my case 

 for several years previous to the last. It is higiily 

 desirable to prevent this uncertainty, il" possible; 

 and I would respectfuilj- suggest the "following ex- 

 pedient — provided the heretofore merely nominal 

 committee of agriculture appointed by the legisla- 

 ture — will do nothing towards attaining the object. 

 Let two or three members of our society, in each 

 of their respective counties, or one in each county, 

 where one only can be found, endeavor to procure 

 and to attend accurate trials, during the next sum- 

 mer, of all the dilTercnt kinds of wheat machines 

 used within the said counties, and report lullv and 

 minutely, at our next fall meeting, the result ot 

 «uch trials; and if none can be found willing to per- 

 form this important service without pay, let their 

 expenses, where any may be incurred, be defrayed 

 out of the fimds of our society. To render such 

 reports effectual in communicating the requisite in- 

 formation, let it be required, that they should con- 

 tain as particular a description of the structure and 

 perlbrmance of each machine, as the examiners 

 are capable of making. For example, let them 

 report the cost — the number of horses or mules 

 used in working them — the number of revolutions 

 performed in a minute, by the cylinder or drum — the 

 num.ber of teeth or beaters on each, the number 

 of bushels got out per hour, as well as the kind of 

 wheat with which the trial was made — the num- 

 ber of grains left in a certain number of heads ta- 

 ken promiscuously from the straw, afler it has 

 passed through the machine, as well as the num- 

 ber of grains in the same number of heads taken 

 in the same promiscuous manner, out of the 

 wheat which has not passed through. Let it 

 also be stated whether the straw was dry or damp 

 when the trial Avas made; whether the machine be 

 stationary or portable; and whether it ejects its 

 work by combing or hackling the wheat, — as some 

 call it; or by beating or rubbing it out of the straw. 

 A knowledge of all these particulars appears to me 

 absolutely necessary to enable any one to form a 

 correct opinion as to the comparative merits of the 

 multitude of machines for getting out small grain, 

 that are continually soliciting our patronage; and 

 therefore I hope to be excused for the Ibregoing 

 very minute enumeration of all the facts that'se em 

 to me essential to a just decision, in regard to the 

 numerous conflicting claims upon which all pur- 

 chasers of wheat machines must decide, before 

 thejr can pro])erly determine which to buy. I my- 

 self have carefully examined some six or eight 

 diiTcrent kinds; but although I think several" of 

 them are very valuable, yet none fully justily the 

 pufls that I have read of them in our public jour- 

 nals. Thus far, however, I believe, may be truly 

 asserted in regard to their com]);irarive merits, that 

 all which arc constructed on the combing or hack- 

 ling principle, are superior to any wliich were 

 made on the principle of beating or nibbing, pro- 



vided the cylinders of the first and the drums or 

 beating frames of the latter kind, make the same 

 number of revolutions in the same time. This, I 

 am confident, will be perfectly obvious to any per- 

 son of the smallest mechanical knowledge, who 

 will take the trouble accurately to examine and 

 compare any two machines made on these two 

 different principles. It is hardly possible for tan- 

 gled wheat, of which there is always a great deal 

 in every crop, to };ass through a combing or hack- 

 ling machine, without each head receiving seve- 

 ral severe strokes; whereas, it may easily pass en- 

 tirely unslnick through a beating or rubbing ma- 

 chine, il" presented side^vays — as it often will be. 

 This is frequently the case where the wheat passes 

 through rollers before it comes into contact with 

 those parts of the machine which separate the 

 grain from the straw. I have examined lour kinds 

 of such machines, and consider the best of them 

 inferior to the worst combing or hackling kind, 

 where the velocity of the cylinders and drums 

 was the same. In the latter kinds, of which I 

 have seen three, the wheat is not passed through 

 rollers, but placed in immediate contact with their 

 cylinders. The teeth of all these act edgewise, 

 and are all square at the end, having nearly the 

 same length fi-om the surface of their cylinders to 

 the end of the teeth, and each kind about three- 

 eights of an inch thick. But in Douglass's cylin- 

 der they are flat, being wider than they are thick; 

 in Capron's nearly square, and in Fox and Bor- 

 land's they are staples made of square iron, and 

 wider betvv^een the points where they enter the 

 cylinder, than at the outer end with which they 

 strike the wheat. 



It should be remarked of the three machines just 

 mentioned, that they beat, as well as comb the 

 wheat, for the edges of all theii- teeth are flat — 

 are nearly of the same thickness, and strike with 

 such force as to make a loud noise like a humming 

 top, whenever they are working at their right 

 speed. 



It is proper here to notice what I said last year, 

 in regard to Bayliss' machine, as it has been in- 

 correctly stated, if I have not been misinformed, 

 that I preferred it to all others. No person who 

 read my last address could well have misunder- 

 stood me; for I had not then, nor have I yet seen 

 it tried; and of course, could not have ventured to 

 pronounce any positive opinion about it. All I 

 then said, or can now say, amounts to no more than 

 that it promises well to the eye, and will certainly 

 prove a valuable machine, if its perlbrmance 

 equals the seller's assertions of what it can do. 

 That he believes what he says I have no right to 

 doubt; but if his faith in the excellence of his ma- 

 chine does not exceed its real merits, it will be the 

 first instance that I have ever met with, wherein an 

 mventor or vender of an invention, had not proved 

 over sanguine in his calculations. This recurrence 

 to what I have formerly said of Bayliss' machine, 

 in regard to which I cannot pronounce any con- 

 clusive opinion, woukl not have been made, but 

 for my great solicitude never to be, even the inno- 

 cent cause of deceiving my agricultural brethren, 

 in regard either to wheat machines, or an}^ thing 

 else. Nothing, in fact, is more important towards 

 the introduction of any new implement, or practice 

 in husbandly, than unexaggerated accounts on 

 the part of those who recommend them; since rep- 

 resentations of a contrary character tend invaria- 



