24 



sions, have urged with great pertinacity that the inventions are not 

 novel." 



Shugert's decision was rendered March i, 1861, andJLee & Fisher 

 were the attorneys for Whiteley. 



On April n, 1861, the following letter was written to St. Louis 

 by Mr. Geo. M. Lee, of the firm of Lee & Fisher, Whiteley's attorneys : 



"Cincinnati, April n, 1861. 

 " Messrs. Kingsland & Ferguson: 



" Gents We write you at the instance of various of the mower 

 and reaper manufacturers who oppose the extension of McCormick's 

 patents. . . . We have taken much testimony in the case and ob- 

 tained a resolution of Congress giving us more time, until May n, to 

 take further evidence. Now this litigation is for the joint interest of 

 you all, and we have supposed all would sustain it. ... If Mc- 

 Cormick's patents are extended he will monopolize the entire business 

 and you will all either have to pay him $15 per machine or quit; for 

 although he was beaten in the Hussey case he has reissued his patents, 

 as you are aware, so as to cover every machine of any real value. All 

 he waits for now is an extension and he will begin a war on you all, 

 and it will be found almost impossible to beat him in court on these 

 reissues. They are prepared with great care, but he can be beaten in 

 the Patent Office, and he must be beaten now or never. . . . 

 Please, therefore, take hold and help us beat the common enemy. 

 . . . Subscriptions have ranged from $100 to $1,000. Respect- 

 fully, LEE & FISHER, by G. M. Lee. 



" P. S. Send in also to the Patent Office some hundreds of re- 

 monstrances, if you can, like this. There is no postage to pay. 

 " ' To the Commissioner of Patents of U. S.: 



" ' We oppose the extension of C. H. McCormick's patents. He 

 has made money enough off the farmers. [Signed by hundreds.] ' ' 



Mr. Whiteley has always opposed McCormick, but it is difficult to 

 see how he could in 1861 have thought " that McCormick's patents will 

 monopolize the entire business and cover every machine of any real 

 value," and to-day state : " The reaper of the present day does not 

 disclose any principles contained in the early efforts of C. H. McCor- 

 mick; but that cannot be said of Hussey." In 1861, when the fight was 

 on and reaper men knew about the matter, Whiteley's interpretation 

 of the situation was that Hussey's claims " were not novel " and Mc- 

 Cormick's " covered every machine of any real value." Mr. Whiteley 

 of 1897 better square himself with Mr. Whiteley of 1861 before his 

 opinions will be entitled' to any weight on historical matters. Let it be 

 remembered, however, that Mr. Whiteley had sufficient ability in me- 



