40 



(c) In 1842 McCormick made the improvement on his cutting- 

 apparatus, shown in his patent of 1845, serrating the blade first one 

 way and then in the opposite direction; made large curved open sup- 

 ports for the blade to reciprocate in and spear-shaped fingers to hold 

 the straw to the blade, thus making a " draw shear cut" that would not 

 clog in damp grain. He thus obtained a successful cutting apparatus 

 that enabled him to sell thousands of reapers. 



(d) Hussey in 1846, first built and sold his improved cutting appa- 

 ratus, shown in his patent of 1847, opening the rear of the upper mem- 

 ber of the guard and keeping about one inch of the rear part of the 

 knife flush with the bottom. It was somewhat better than his original 

 plan, but still was not a success, as it lacked the " draw shear cut." 



(e) In 1852 McCormick returned to his open finger and slightly 

 scalloped his blade, thus making his " draw shear cut" principle more 

 effective. Some builders of cutting apparatus, similar to Hussey's, 

 shortened the blades and ceased beveling them on the under side, thus 

 coming more closely to McCormick's " draw shear cut" and making 

 the Hussey apparatus more effective- 



(f) Hussey's attorneys, seeing that his reaper was a failure (the 

 sale shortly dropping to ten a year), got the leading patent attorneys 

 of the country to reissue his patents so as to cover a scalloped blade 

 working in open fingers, and then for the first time, twenty-five years 

 after the invention of the reaper by McCormick, did he have an im- 

 provement of value in harvesters. Upon this one minor feature (the 

 work of attorneys) rests Obed Hussey's only shadow of a claim to the 

 invention of the first successful reaper. 



III. -TREATMENT ACCORDED MCCORMICK AND HUSSEY BT THE GOVERN- 

 MENT. 



This subject has little, if any, bearing on the question of "who in- 

 vented the reaper." The fact, however, that the Board of Commission- 

 ers for the Extension of Patents refused in 1848 to extend McCormick's 

 patent of 1834 is mentioned in the Protest as a point against the nov- 

 elty of McCormick's first machine. 



The extension of Hussey's patent was also refused by the same 

 Board, but mention of that fact was carefully omitted in the Protest. 

 Hussey also applied to Congress for an extension and was refused, 



