10 



duced, Fig. I, shows the shafts for a 'horse in dotted lines at the front 

 and at the side of the grain, and the tongue behind. This plan of 



Fig.l 



PaienUd June.Zi 



showing and describing alternate methods of construction was and 

 still is very common in patents. McCormick's idea was, that a ma- 

 chine with a wider cut could be made by pushing than by pulling at 

 the side, and, to effect this, the patent shows the pole behind attached' 

 to the rear of the platform nearer the center of the machine than the 

 pole or shafts could be. His platform being just the width of the fin- 

 ger-bar, allows the raker to walk at the rear of the frame of the ma- 

 chine and rake the gavel to the side out of the way of the team, if push- 

 ing behind, and out of the way of the team and machine in the next 

 round of the field, whether the machine be drawn or pushed. Hussey's- 

 patent shows and describes only a pull machine, because his platform 

 extended the full width of his finger-bar and frame and, therefore, was 

 not adapted to raking the gavel to the side, as was McCormick's. 

 HusseyVgavel was pushed off directly behind the finger-bar, and his- 

 machine therefore could not have been pushed, as the team would' 

 trample the gavels, nor could it make a second round of the field, even 

 as a pull machine, until the gavel of the first round had been removed 

 from the path of the team. This alternative system of draft described in; 

 the patent shows that McCormick had clear ideas in 1834 of a wider 

 machine, similar to the modern header, which must be pushed, and 

 of a narrower machine that could more handily be drawn. His ma- 

 chine was always drawn except on one occasion. The Protest, how- 

 ever, goes to unwarrantable extremes in insisting that the McCormick 



