34 



In 1856 P. H. Watson, a patent attorney of Washington, who had 

 been interested for the defense in the suit of McCormick vs. Manny, 

 and who* had in that connection become familiar with harvester inven- 

 tions, sought Hussey and explained to him wherein his cutting device 

 was wrong, and urged' upon him the reissue of his patent of 1847. P re ~ 

 paratory to this reissue Watson was retained and the following list of 

 lawyers: Stanton, the greatest patent lawyer of his day; Harding, then a 

 young man, but since famous; Gifford, Keller, Dodge, McLean, Law, 

 Hewitt and Scott. The total fees paid these men in four years was 

 $33,393.87, an exorbitant sum for that early day. These figures and 

 names are taken from the statement filed by Hussey when obtaining 

 the extension of his patent in 1861. The patent of 1847 was then 

 reissued. The original patent stated in the first claim that the guards 

 were to be " open on top and to be used in combination with a knife" 

 Watson, from, his experience with the McCormick machine, knew that 

 McCormick had used a knife in combination with guard fingers that 

 were open beloiv, and so this claim was reissued to cover *' a scalloped 

 knife in combination with open guard fingers." Nothing was said 

 about the beveling of the knife upon both edges ; and for the first time 

 Hussey (?) made the invention for which he has been given so much 

 credit. To the average man, however, this invention will appear due 

 to the $33,000 that he paid to that long array of famous lawyers. This 

 reissue by Hussey of his patents ; the employment of the leading patent 

 lawyers of America, paying them immense fees, and the manipulation 

 of his patent through the Patent Office, is ample evidence of Hussey's 

 shrewdness and business ability. At this time his manufacture of 

 machines had decreased to a very few (nineteen in 1857), and he seemed 

 to realize that as a manufacturer he was out of the market, and that 

 his sole opportunity lay in reissuing his patents to cover a cutting 

 device which should contain far more of McCormick's idea than of his 

 own. 



If Mr. Hussey's conception in 1846 had been clear on even this 

 feature, he would have been entitled to the credit for an improvement of 

 value ; but he had no conception of the essential requisite of a " draw 

 cut." In securing his reissued patent he completely changed it from 

 the original. The knife was changed from " a knife" to " a scalloped 

 knife" and the open guard changed from " a guard open on top" to 



