10 BKIEK NARRATlVr: OF THE 



applied to " the farmer of Virginia. Mr. Sampson," for a certificate as 

 to the satisfactory working of the machine, but it was declined. 



We are not surprized at this; for some 35 years ago we were per- 

 sonally acquainted with this "farmer of Virginia," and also with his 

 mode of farming; and know that a machine of any kind to please him 

 rrnist li'ork and must also work ''well." Richard Sampson was at that 

 early day in this " age of progress," one of the best and most 

 practical farmers in the " Old Dominion," and was not a man to be 

 "caught napping," either at home or abroad. 



The record shows that " on March, 29, 1848, the Board met agreea- 

 bly to adjournment — Present James Buchanan, Sec'y of State, Edmund 

 Burke, Commissioner of Patents, and R. H. Gillet, Solicitor of the 

 Treasury, — and having examined the evidence adduced in the case, 

 decide that said patent ought not to be extended." 

 Signed, 



James Buchanan, Sec'y State. 

 Edmund Burke, Commiss'r. Pat's. 

 R. H. GiLLETT, Solicitor Treas'y. 



This evidence, taken in due form, and certified to by the magis- 

 trates in Augusta and Rockbridge Counties, Va., was ?iot ruled out as 

 informal, as we have seen it stated: but it was certainly laid before 

 the Board; and was doubtless satisfactory both as to priority of inven- 

 tion;— and in connexion with Dr. Page's report, conclusive, " that said 

 patent ought not to be extended." 



We have also seen it stated that Hussey appeared before the Board 

 of Extensions " to contest the extension of McCormick's patent." 



We think injustice — and no doubt unintentionally — is here done to 

 Hussey. Until the order of the Board was passed to afford him the 

 opportunity to defend his rights, assailed without his knowledge, he 

 was not aware of C. H. McCormick's application. As a matter of 

 course he then attended, but stated in writing, and which is now on 

 file, " I had no intention, neither had I any desire to place any obstacle 

 in the way of the extension of C. H. McCormick's patent. But the 

 course he has taken before your Board and before Congress, has com- 

 pelled me to act in self defense." 



Not so with C. H. McCormick; for when his claims were rejected 

 by the Board of Extensions,— and most justly, aj we think, in accord- 

 ance with the evidence — he petitio7ied Congress agaitist Hussey s extension: 

 and to this most ungenerous, illiberal and unfair course, and of which 

 Hussey was for years totally ignorant, C. H. McCormick may justly 

 attribute this Enquiry; — but for this, it had never been written. Our 

 object is not to injure C. H. McCormick; but it is that justice may be 

 done to another, whose interests and rights he was the first to assail. 



If the foregoing testimony is not conclusive, as regards priority of 

 invention in 1831 against C. H. McCormick, we think the evidence 

 which follows— and which no one will pretend to call in question, or 

 doubt— establishes the fact that the machine of 183 1 was good for 

 nothing, — not even half i?ivented; and that the machine of 1841, was 

 not much more perfect. 



