11 



patent of 1834 shows only a push machine. Such a mistake could 

 only have been made by a writer ignorant of the subject, or with mal- 

 ice, publishing what he knew to be untrue. This is the main point of 

 the whole argument of the Protest, as is shown by the following quo- 

 tation : 



" Several alleged representations of the 1831 machine have been 

 published, showing a horse in thills, drawing it, differing little from 

 the machine of the McCormick patent of 1845. If these representa- 

 tions are correct, then the machine of the McCormick patent of 1834 

 shows, practically, an abandonment of the principles of the alleged 

 machine of 1831, for in the patent the reaper was a push machine, 

 somewhat like the Bell of 1826, but mounted on two wheels only a 

 master wheel and a grain wheel. The tongue, as usual with these ma- 

 chines, extended reanvardly, but had nothing to prevent its end from 

 dropping to the ground, nor had it anything to prevent the draft of 

 the team from raising it. So constructed, it was not as controllable 

 as a wheelbarrow, for the load in the latter will keep the handles from 

 being turned over forward by the pulling action of the arms of the 

 operator. In order to prevent the machine from turning over forward, 

 due provision was made, however, for he says: The tongue is to be 

 supported by the horses by means of a pole, passing across their backs 

 between them, and resting on pad saddles. From this, a pole or chain 

 passes back to the tongue below and suspends it to the desired height. 

 With a machine of the header type in mind, it now seems strange that 

 the idea of supporting its push tongue upon the backs of the horses 

 ever occurred, and it seems equally strange that a man would ever sup- 

 pose that a team could be so driven as to steer such a machine. A 

 horse might be trained to run a wheelbarrow as a feat, but no one 

 would think of using such a combination for any practical purpose." 



The quotation from the patent that is contained in the above ex- 

 tract, shows that the writer of the Protest must have had before him 

 a copy of che McCormick patent of 1834. What explanation, then, 

 can be offered for his failure to state that the patent also provided for 

 a plan of pulling the machine? Immediately after the description of 

 the plan for pushing the machine the patent describes how it can be 

 dr?wn. It says: 



" One horse may work the machine from this side by substituting 

 shafts for the tongue.*' 



Again, after speaking of a guide in front of the main wheel to de- 

 flect grain to the cutting apparatus, the patent states : 



" This triangle is to be moveable on its screw r also, and it may be 

 removed altogether for the purpose of inserting shafts, so that the ma- 



