INVKNTION OF KKA1MN(. .\IA( MINKS. 7 



brief period and witli keen ed^cs; but as they become dull, the shears 

 are forced apart by the straw and grass — particular the latter, and the 

 machine fails, as it inevitably must do, in its allotted duty: and for very 

 obvious reasons. If the shear rivet or bolt is kept ti^ht, there is too 

 much friction; if loose enough to play frcelx, it is too loose to cut well; 

 and lastly, it is too liable to wear at the most imj)ortant point of the whole 

 machine. During the harvest of 1S53 in England, every effort was 

 made to uphold Bell's machine; in some cases prizes were awarded to 

 it, though evidently partial; for in the face of these awards, some who 

 witnessed the trials, and had used Bell's machines, laid them aside and 

 purchased Hussey's. At the close of the season, as we learn from 

 reliable authority, even the engineers who o[)crated Bell's, frankly 

 admitted that the American machine as exhibited by Hussey, was the 

 better implement, owing to the arrangement of the guartisand knives; 

 Bell's required so much tinkering, that several machines were required 

 to cope with one of Hussey's. At the recent har\est,( 1S54) the Mark 

 Lane Express acknowledges that at the Royal Agricultural Societies' 

 show at Lincoln, Bell's machine was "at last fairly beaten" by Hus- 

 sey's, including McCormick's, and Hussey's machine received the prize 

 over all others. It is just, however, to add, that far as we consider 

 Bell's machine behind some of the present day, yet complex and cum- 

 bersome as it was, it combined more of the essential features of success, 

 than any Reaper that preceded it. 



We now come to 1833, the date of Hussey's patent; and to 1834, 

 the date of C. H. McCormick's first patent. These were known and 

 admitted by all to have been the rivals for popular favor and patron- 

 age, from about the year 1844 or 1845 to the opening of the great 

 Industrial Exhibition in London, in 1851. To these, therefore, the 

 Enquiry will be more particularly directed. 



We must however refer back for abricf period to 1831 ; for although 

 C. H. McCormick's first patent was dated in 1834, yet when he applied 

 for his extension in 1848, he alleged that hisinvcntum was prior to Hus- 

 sey's, as he had invented a nfachine in 1831, two years before the date 

 of O. Hussey's, and three years before the date of his own patent. The 

 evidence produced (i>.'rittC7i 3.nd prept7nd hy C. H. McCormick and now 

 on file in the Patent Office) was deemed inadmissible and informal by 

 the Board, and it refused to go on with the examination either as to 

 priority or validity of invention without notice to Hussey — his patent 

 being called in question by McCormick — to be present when the dep- 

 ositions were taken. 



Before however receiving the official notice, he was called on by 

 C. H. McCormick in Baltimore, and requested to sign a paper, agreeing 

 or admitting, diat the testimony he had himself prepared should be con- 

 sidered evidence — i. e. considered formal; alleging that it would save 

 him trouble and expense in going to Virginia. This was declined by 

 Hussey on the ground that he might thus unwittingly injure himself: 

 he having previously applied for an extension of his own Patent. 

 Neither was he then aware of the nature of this evidence; or until this 

 interview, was he advised of C. H. McCormick's application for 

 extension. 



