PREPARED BY THE DEERING HARVESTER COMPANY. 23 



year for experimenting, and also the failure of some crops— added much 

 to the difficulty, and delay in introducing and completing the reaper. 



"I was not sufficiently satisfied of its being a 'useful' machine to 

 patent the reaper, until the year 1834, its construction and proportions 

 having been imperfect, requiring much effort to make them, whilst light, 

 yet simple, strong and durable; and the cutting apparatus being defec- 

 tive on account of liability to choke and get out of order — all which 

 defects had to be corrected by a series of experiments; and often (per- 

 haps generally) the result of but one experiment for the same object 

 could be fully tested in one harvest. 



"The cutting, indeed, proved not to be sufficiently certain to be 

 relied on in all situations until I invented the improvement in the 

 'fingers' (or supports to the cutting), and reversed the angle to the 

 teeth of the sickle — as described and patented January 31, 1845, in con- 

 nection with the improvement in the 'bearers' — which improvements, 

 dispensing with the under part of the fingers {iindei' X\\e sickle), on which 

 blades, grass, etc., were liable to hang and choke the machine, simpli- 

 fied and perfected the cutting apparatus." 



We read, further, in the statement, that notwithstanding discourage- 

 ments, improvements were added in 1839, and an exhibition given, at 

 which an order for a machine was taken and another one ordered later. 

 These two machines "were the only reapers disposed of for the harvest 

 of 1840 — and they failed to operate zvell.'"'' The teeth of the sickle were 

 made coarser than they had been, but all going in one direction, as they 

 did, playing in grooves in the fingers, the blades of wheat were drawn 

 into the grooves and there lodged on the underside of the fingers, so as 

 to choke the machine, especially in damp wheat. 



He goes on to say as follows: "Those gentlemen could of course 

 say nothing m favor oi the reaper that year; and they failing, all that 

 I could do for it the next harvest (1841) was to correct the defects 

 in those two machines — but the James River farmer (Mr. Sampson), who 

 has since purchased two — in different years — declined having anything 

 done to his at that time. Accordingly, I then put a new sickle into Mr. 

 Smith's machine — having the angle of the teeth reversed on the edge 

 every one and a half inches (about) alternately, so as to cut equally in 

 both directions, and the machine then performed so satisfactorily that, 

 in addition to Mr. Smith's certificate, I warranted the performance of 

 the reaper in every respect; and from that amount, upon those terms sold 

 for the harvest of 1842, seven reapers; and they all gave satisfaction, 

 allowance being made for defects which I afterwards had to correct by 

 adding further improvements to them," etc. 



It is thus seen that Mr. McCormick's sales practically began for the 

 harvest of 1842, eleven years after his first experiments. If Bell's 

 machine (see No. 4) and Hussey's (see No. 5) had been so defective in 

 principles as to require so many years' labor to correct them, it is quite 

 possible that their energies would have failed to stand the test of so 

 many years of discouragements. 



No. 8. 



MACHINE Mccormick. 



Le 31 Juin 1834, un brevet des Etats-Unis fut octroye k Cyrus H. 

 McCormick de Rockbridg-e, Virg-inie. Dans la method'e de traction 



