23 



the shearing motion of the blades and worked back between the blades, 

 and the grass, materially obstructing the free movement of the blades, 

 in wet weather frequently caused what the farmers called choking. 

 ... In my original sickle, patented in 1833, the blades are ground 

 ic it h a bevel on both <iies of the edge; the purpose of this is that, by 

 means of the shoulder of the bevel, the sharp edge is prevented from 

 coming in contact with the finger, and when sprung or bent cutting 

 into the finger. ... By reason of this tendency of the scalloped 

 sickle to force the stalks across and thus entangle them upon the fin- 

 gers, all the modes heretofore devised of working this sickle were 

 apparently ineffective" 



Hussey signed the above, under oath, in 1857, and the Patent 

 Office granted him a patent for an improvement on these statements. 



Further proof seems unnecessary to show the failure of Hussey's 

 machine of 1833, after his own sworn statement in 1857. Neverthe- 

 less there are many facts, aside from his own statement, which would, 

 of themselves, effectually prove its failure. 



In a brief filed in the Patent Office in 1848 Hussey disclaimed 

 everything in his first patent but his cutter, and described that as 



"' Composed of a row of blades of lancet point shape, arranged 

 on a rod, side by side. / do not claim to be the inventor of such blades 

 but I claim them in combination with and vibrating through and into 

 double fingers." 



A discussion, therefore, of the Hussey cutting apparatus is a dis- 

 cussion of his reaper. 



Mr. W. X. Whiteley is one of the very few who now have the cour- 

 age to sign their communications, and who states, in a letter written 

 January 8, 1897, and published with the Protest: 



" 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-" 



Possibly Mr. Whiteley 's memory is better now than it was in 1861, 

 when he had less interest in denying the invention of the reaper by 

 McCormick. All disinterested persons, however, will think that his 

 mind was as vigorous and his judgment on the question of invention as 

 good in 1861 as it is to-day. Hon. Samuel T. Shugert, Acting Com- 

 missioner of Patents, says in his opinion, given March i, 1861, in the 

 application of Eunice B. Hussey fo r an extension .of Obed Hussey's 

 patent: 



" The counsel of Wm. X. Whiteley, the opponent of these exten- 



