12 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 



or for " the invention made by my father in the harvest of 1831, which 

 satisfied my father to abandon it." This authority, high and official as 

 all must admit it to be, [and italicised too, by the writer for a particu- 

 lar object,] clearly proves that the invention of 183 1 was an abortion; 

 for if the principle was effective to cut one acre of grain properly, any 

 man of common sense knows that it was equally so to cut one thousand 

 acres; but so complete was the failure that," During this interval " — 

 between 1831 and 1834— "/t£W.V(5/?<7/ advised by 7ny father a?id family to 

 abandon it, and purstie my rcgidar business, as likely to be more profitable, 

 he having give 71 me a farm!' 



Again, " No machines were sold until 1840, and I may say that they 

 were not of much practical value until the improvements of my sec- 

 ond patent in 1845." What these improvements were we are also in- 

 formed: "These improvements consist in reversing the angle of the 

 sickle teeth alternately, the improved form of the fingers to hold up 

 the corn. &c.— an iron case to preserve the sickle from clogging, &c. — 

 up to this period nothing but loss of time and money resulted from 

 my efforts." 



Nor is it at all surprising; for until improvements were added, in- 

 vented and long in successful operation by others, the machine would 

 not work, and consequently no one would buy. 



This letter is the most perfect and complete estopper to priority 

 of invention— not only for i83i,butto 1841 inclusive, if not to 1845, 

 that could be penned. His pC7i cuts a " cleaner swath," as we farmers 

 say. than ever did his Reaper; and this letter at least is certainly C. H. 

 McCormick's own "invention," which no one else can lay any claim 

 to. Yet strange as it may appear, he contended before the Board of 

 Extensions in order to invalidate Hussey's Patent, that he invented a 

 Reaping Machine nine years before! So has perpetual motion been 

 invented a hundred times— in the estimation of the projectors; and by 

 his own showing, and on oath, he sold but two machines up to 1842— 

 one of them conditionally sold— being eleven years after the alleged 

 invention, and even they had to be re-invented to make them work, or 

 use the previous inventions of others. 



In this letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., C. H. McCormick admits 

 that the Reel " had been used before," yet he includes it in his patent 

 of 1834.— Both the specifications and drawings in the Patent Office, 

 conclusively establish the fact that James Ten Eyck patented the reel 

 or "revolving rack," or "revolving frame " in 1825, used not only to 

 gather the grain as all such devices are used, but by the knives attached 

 to it, also intended to cut it off. 



Could it be contended that because rockers are attached to a chair, 

 it is no longer a chair, or useful as a seat? Even " Mary McCormick 

 the mother of Cyrus," and " P:iiza H. Steele, of Steele's Tavern, Va." 

 — nay every woman and child in the country would tell you that it was 

 then a rocking chair,— just as much a seat as ever— and Ten PLyck's was 

 a Reel to all intents and purposes, but also a cutting reel. It does not 

 require the mechanical tact and skill of Professor Page to discover 

 that, "the revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its oper- 



