INVENTION OK UliAPING MACHINES. 9 



Mary McCormick, — mother of C. H. McCormick; agreed in gen- 

 eral with the testimony of her sons, — did not doubt but it was correct, 

 " it appears familiar to me," but testified to nothing in particular. 



John Steele, Jr. — Was tavernkeeper at " Steele's Tavern " — testified 

 as to the year being 1S31 or 1832. In his amended testimony, admitted 

 that C. H. McCormick wrote the paper describing the machine for him 

 to testify to; recollects little else about the machine than the straight 

 sickle edge. 



Eliza II. .Steele — refused to testify, without first seeing a certificate 

 previously signed by her; admitted that C. H. McCormick wrote it for 

 her to sign; her testimony as to the year, depended on the building of 

 a certain house, on which the workmen put 183 1. 



John McCown — was a black-smith — testified that he made the 

 " straight sickle blade," and that it was " a long straight sickle " blade. 



This was most singular testimony to found a claim of priority of 

 invention on, and by which to invalidate another man's patent. There 

 was discrepancy in the evidence as to the year of the invention; also 

 whether the machine was intended for one or two horses; how the 

 " fingers" were arranged, and whether of zvood or iron, above or below, 

 the "straight sickle blade." Two of the brothers — one at least who 

 helped to make, if not also to invent this machine — testified that the 

 plan or arrangement of the machine here sworn to, was changed in 

 1840, 1841. 1842, or 1843, they did not know which; from g to 12 years 

 afterwards! 



John McCown swears positively that he helped to build the machine, 

 so far at least as to forge "a long straight sickle;" but neither he, or a 

 single one of the se\en sworn witnesses, ''ladies dind gentle fnen,'' testify 

 that the machine ever worked a single hour, or cut as much grain of 

 any kind as would make a single sheaf.!* 



In a long communication to Com'r. Burke in 1848, together with a 

 list of sales and profits, C. H. McCormick states, and on oath, that 

 he had exhibited his machine in 1840 or 1841 to a considerable 

 number of farmers and very satisfaetorily, though but one person could 

 be induced to purchase — a Mr. John Smith we believe — and that up to 

 1842, eleve?i years after the alleged in\ention, he had sold but two 

 machines, and one of them conditionally. Again, in the same paper he 

 states, " but the)' failed to operate well," and had to be altered: — in 

 other words they would not work at all. Amongst others, he had 



*The reading of this testimony strongly remiruls us of an anecdote related at 

 the hustings in \'a. by that talented but eccentric character, John Randolph, of Roa- 

 noake, in a political canvass with an opponent, who promised what he would do for his 

 constituents, if elected. Randolph told him he was like one of his overseers, a plaus- 

 ible fellow, but on whom little reliance was to be placed — and who, desiring to show 

 what fine crops he had raised, exhibited a better tally hoard than the crop could jus- 

 tify. "I told him," said Ramloli^h, "this is very good tally, John, but where's the 

 corn? and I tell the gentleman, I tlon't want to see his tally, but the corn — the evi- 

 dence of what he ever did to entitle him to a seat in Congress." The effect was 

 electric, and the h'lstings rang with plautlits. Now we woulil say to C. H. McCor- 

 mick, this is very good tally John, but where's the CORN? The evidence that the 

 machine ever cut a single acre of grain. 



