arrange some of those he had so they would operate. His machine 

 failed. Not one was sold. He did not even take a patent and the world 

 profited nothing by his labors. With the knowledge gained from fifty 

 years of experience with reapers, it is pointed out that only a few 

 changes would have been necessary for him to have produced a suc- 

 cessful reaper. He was a schoolmaster, a visionary inventor without 

 mechanical skill, and his reaper was, and would to-day be, a failure. 



Bell, in 1828, built a push-machine, a great ark on four wheels, 

 having a cutting device consisting of shears with blades sixteen inches 

 long. A few of these machines were built, but " from their intricacy 

 they fell into disuse." Bell's countrymen have claimed the invention 

 of the reaper for him, but have failed to show that his machine was or 

 could be a success. 



The Protest also refers to Pitt's machine. This machine was not 

 even a reaper, as it did not have a cutting apparatus. It had a re- 

 volving cylinder with rows of combs to strike into the heads of grain 

 and tear them off. It was a failure. Randall's machine is also men- 

 tioned as having been operated in New Jersey in 1833. Randall made 

 a model which he exhibited at a Mechanics' Fair in Utica, N. Y., on 

 January 15, 1835. His patent was issued in April of 1835 and his first 

 machine built for the harvest of 1835. The machine was a failure. 

 It was so pronounced a failure that Randall did not restore his patent. 

 Along in the fifties Randall was a willing witness for pay, and made an 

 ex parte affidavit in the McCormick vs. Seymour & Morgan suit, 

 swearing his invention 'back to 1830. Having never built a machine 

 for sale, it is not to be wondered at that he sold his recollection, but 

 under the stimulus of pay it was too active. He was produced for 

 cross-examination and convicted by the testimony of his own son and 

 others of swearing falsely and of altering his model. So clearly was 

 Randall convicted that Mr. Justice Nelson did not even refer to him 

 in his charge in that case. He referred to the machines of Bell, 

 Schnebly, Hussey, Moore and Hascall, Reed and Woodward, saying: 



" With the exception of the patent and machine of Hussey, not 

 one of the machines referred to ever went into general or successful 

 operation. Why they failed we do not know. What was the secret, 

 what the defects, we are not told. All we know is that they were un- 

 successful experiments." 



Whatever question there is lies between McCormick and Hussey. 



