PREPARED BY THE DEERING HARVESTER COAIPANY. n 



in this machine, left unobstructed by the reel-bearer, which is horizontal, 

 some feet above the platform, and completely out of reach of the grain. 

 There is no difference between the reel-bearer in the machine of the 

 plaintiff in error and that in Bell's machine." 



This case liaving been appealed from the lower court by the defL-ndant, there he became the 

 plaintiff in error in the higher court. 



Waters (McCormick's witness), on being shown the drawing of Bell's 

 machine in Loudon's "Encyclopedia of Agriculture," says; 



"As to mere manner of supporting the reel, I see no difference 

 between the method of supporting the reel in this and in the defendant's 

 machine." 



This prior invention of Bell's, if the court had not substantially 

 excluded it from the consideration of the jury, would have furnished a 

 complete answer to the charge of infringement of the fifth claim of 

 McCormick's patent of 1845. 



As this matter was fully gone into by the United States courts, it 

 may be considered settled that Mr. Bell's machine had not only a divider 

 in advance of the cutting apparatus, a reel adapted to be raised and 

 lowered relative to the cutting apparatus, as well as forw^ard and back- 

 ward, a grain-receiving platform, a cutting device, and all the essentials 

 of a reaping machine. The fact that it was used continuously until after 

 the advent of self-raking reapers is sufficient proof of its practicability. 

 Its cutting apparatus consisted of shears. 



To the machine above shown was applied, by James Todd, the open- 

 guard cutting apparatus of Hussey, a short time previously exhibited at 

 the Universal Exposition of 185 1 at London, England. 



Mr. Todd also further improved Bell's machine by putting a draft 

 tongue upon it. 



No. I. 

 LA MACHINE A MOISSONNER BELL. 



En 1826, le Rev. Patrick Bell, en Ecosse, inventa une machine a 

 moissonner qui fut employee en 1827. Dans un rapport lu par I'in- 

 venteur a la reunion annuelle de la British Association for the Pro- 

 motion of Science en 1867 on trouve un compte-rendu de cette machine. 

 La machine, disait.il, a ete en operation satisfaisante chaque annee 

 depuis lors. 



La gravure ci-dessus montre la machine dans une de ses dernieres 

 formes et le modele No. 81 la montre dans une de ses formes primi- 

 tives. Le modele illustre ci-haut a ete fait d'une photog-raphie d'une 

 machine Bell prise par James Todd, maintenant a Edinbourg-, Ecosse, 

 pendant que la machine etait en reparations a sa ferme en 1S64. 



La machine etait presque la seule en usage dans un grand nombre 

 de fermes en Ang-leterre et en Ecosse. 



Cette machine comprenait maintes inventions de grande impor- 

 tance. Pour donner plein credit a Bell pour ce qu'il a accompli, il 

 est bon de dire qu'on a essaye d'amoindrir son succes en 

 tachant de demontrer que sa machine n'etait pas operative. Cette 

 question fut completement videe par la Cour Supreme des Etats-Unis 

 par la decision prise dans le proces de C. H. INIcCormick, sous son 

 brevet de 1845, contre Seymour & Morg^an. La Cour Supreme dit : 



