INVENTION OK KKAI'INO MACHINES. 31 



watched with much interest tlie progress of their inii)rovemcnt. I have 

 examined most of those which luive the best reputation, and do not 

 behave there is a single one in which the cutting principle has not been 

 copied from yours. 



In attempting to avoid an infringement of your [patent, variations 

 have been made cither in the cutting apparatus, or the driving machin- 

 ery, by which they have been made more complicated and less effi- 

 cient. Burrall's, which approaches nearest to j'ours in simplicity and 

 efiliciency, is so close a copy, that I do not see how the courts could 

 refuse an injunction to prohibit the use of it. The only material differ- 

 ence is the attempt at a side delivery which was tried by you on your 

 first machine, and proved an entire failure. 



Believing sincerely that the farmers of the U. S. owe you a debt of 

 gratitude, which a regard for themselves should prompt them to pay, 

 and understanding that attempts have been made to question even the 

 priority^ of )'our in\'ention, I send )'ou a volume of the Genessee 

 Farmer published in 1834, which will show the opinion entertained at 

 that time by the farmers of that celebrated wheat growing region, both 

 as to the efficiency and priority of your reaper. 



Vour ob't serv't. 



Tench Tilghm.\n. 



As we have already much exceeded the intended limits of the 

 narrative, we might, perhaps, with propriety, here rest the Enquiry, 

 having as we think satisfactorily shown, and by evidence that cannot 

 be disproved; first, that for a period of 9 or 10 years after the alleged 

 invention of the reaper by C. H. McCormick in '31, he did not sell a 

 single machine; nor could he establish by all the evidence adduced 

 before the Board of Extensions, in 1848, that prior to 1840 or 1S41, was 

 his reaper in any degree an effective or practical machine; for as he 

 himself states in the letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., it was not until 

 very material alterations — all essential it may be said — were made, 

 some 6 or 8 years after the date of the patent, could the machine be 

 made to work even tolerably well. Indeed, he states, " I may say the\- 

 were not of much practical value, until the improvements of m\' 

 second patent in 1845," being eleven years after the date of the patent, 

 and fourteen years after the alleged invention in 1831. 



On the other hand we have shown by as good and respectable testi- 

 mony as can be had in any cause, that from 1833 to 1854, a period of 

 twenty-one years, Hussey's invention was most efficient and satis- 

 factory, every year : not by cutting a patch of the fraction of an acre, 

 but by reaping hundreds, nay thousands of acres annually, by the few 

 machines placed in the hands of the farmers from '33 to '40. 



As however, we ha\e given no direct evidence from Delaware, or 

 V'irgiuia, none from North Carolina, and but one from New York, we 

 annex a few short testimonials from each, that embrace the period 

 from 1838 to 1845; ^"cl ^vith a few more of the same respectable char- 

 acter up to 1853, both in this country and in England, we will leave 

 the decision of the question to the intelligent reader. — We will how- 



