36 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST 
chiefly directed to the gathering of the corn 
into sheaves after it has been cut. 
Of the above 69 illustrated examples on Mr. 
Woodcroft’s table, nine are American, so that 
we have a grand total of 160 reaping machines 
produced by both countries up to 1851 and 1852, 
or about 200 up to this date; and, looking upon 
them as a whole, they certainly form an inter¬ 
esting combination of the mechanical powers to 
obtain a given result—the harvesting of corn. 
The work of reaping embraces three things : 
the cutting of the corn, the gathering or dispo¬ 
sal of it after it is cut, and the application of 
power to perform or overcome the resistance 
experienced in both these operations. 
The cutting-apparatus of the whole is pretty 
faithfully exemplified by the 69 illustrations al¬ 
ready noticed in a tabular form, showing the 
different modes of action and numbers embrac¬ 
ing each ; and even among these there are many 
parallel cases, only distinguishable by some 
comparatively unimportant alteration in the 
details, apparently more for the purpose of 
evading a previous patent than obtaining a 
really useful mechanical improvement, while 
many inventors have evidently been reducing 
the same ideas to practice unknown to each 
other. For example: Boyce and Walker, 1799; 
Plucknett, 1807; Chandler, U. S. A., 1835; 
Duncan, U. S. A., 1840 ; Beckford and Gosling, 
1851, and Mason, 1852, differ so little from each 
other that they may be said to belong to one 
manufactory; while ditto may be said of Gom- 
pertz and Burch, 1852, they being only double, 
or composed of two horizontal wheels with 
hooks on their peripheries moving in opposite 
directions on the same shaft, instead of single 
or only one wheel; Whitworth, Fairless, France, 
Mackay, and Springer again may be called bas¬ 
tard examples of the same machanical family. 
Of circular cutting-knives, similar to what Mr. 
Harkes exhibited at Lincoln, (No. 7 in the trial 
report,) we have no fewer than six illustrations, 
viz., Plucknett, 1805; Gladston, 1806; Smith 
and Kerr, 1811; Bailey, U. S. A., 1822, and 
Whitworth, 1849, almost identical, while Dobbs, 
1814, and Scott, 1815, present similar knives, 
only with serrated edges; Scott’s, 1815,'and 
Gibson’s, 1846, present a new feature, the cut¬ 
ting blade of the knife projecting beyond the 
periphery of a similar horizontal wheel to the 
last—the former serrated, the latter smooth ; 
while we find Manning, 1831, and other Ameri¬ 
can examples on the same principle, not illus¬ 
trated. Mann’s, 1820, belongs to the same 
class. Another class of ideas appear to have 
had for their object the cutting of corn by 
means of a series of small smooth cutting 
edged wheels, advancing horizontally with their 
peripheries a little past each other, so as to cut 
like scissors; each pair moving inward, as feed¬ 
ing rollers do. Of the 31 examples of contin¬ 
uous and advancing motion, 4 belong to this 
class, viz., Cummings, 1811 ; Phillips, 1841, 
’43, and ’52; Winder, 1851; and Gompertz, 
1852. Smith’s, 1852, lanceolates the periphery 
of his small wheels. The remaining 3 exam¬ 
ples—Pitt, 1786, Budding, 1830, and Trotter 
1851—present new features each. The first is 
a drum, composed of a series of circular saws, 
which strip off the corn. It is, in short, circu¬ 
lar motion given to the stripping apparatus of 
the old Roman machine. The second is a grass- 
mower, too well known to require further no¬ 
tice ; and the third, we fear, displays more in¬ 
genuity than usefulness, being four pair of re¬ 
volving shears, which dip the corn as they ad¬ 
vance. Budding’s and Ridley’s Australian ma¬ 
chines ought properly speaking to have formed 
an intermediate class between the circular and 
rectilinear motion, as they embrace both ; but 
of this more when we come to the manufacture 
of machinery for reaping and threshing at the 
same time, for the fine climate of our southern 
colonies, now attracting so much attention. 
Among the 25 reciprocating knives, there is 
also a great similarity—so much so, that there 
is little mechanically to distinguish many of 
them from each other. They may, however, 
be grouped into four or five sub-classes : First, 
Salmon, 1807; Bell, 1826; Stacey, Ridley, and 
Harkes, 1852—five examples where the knife 
moves on a pin-like shears. Ogle’s 1822 and 
M’Cormick’s two examples of 1854 have a 
straight reciprocating knife; one of the latter 
being serrated, which in mechanics is merely a 
rougher edge; the smoothest edge appearing 
more serrated than it, under a powerful magni¬ 
fier. It has, however, advantages in practice, 
from its remaining longer sharp, or in cutting 
order, which justly entitle it to a patent, and 
preference over a smoother edge, according to 
the present process of things; but at a great 
expense of power in the working. Next we 
have the American examples of Manning, 1831, 
Hussey, 1833, and M’Cormick, 1850—the latter 
a serrated edge—with fifteen other examples— 
two of which have double knives—Rundell, U. 
S. A., 1835, and Wray and Son, 1852, and two 
with hollow, or skeleton cutters, Randell and 
Hussey, 1852, similar to those exhibited at Lin¬ 
coln by Mr. Dray, and one by Johnson, with 
curved projections. The knife of Forbash, U. 
S. A., L849, called a “ triangular hollow cutting 
tooth,” appears to have been the first skeleton 
one used. The remaining example of the 25 is 
a species of shears, recommended by Gompertz, 
1852, and of considerable ingenuity, but not 
much usefulness it is feared. 
The two examples of “ sidelong and advanc¬ 
ing” motion have knives fixed on an endless 
chain; the one invented by Lillie in 1847, and the 
other by Exall, 1852. Of the American exam¬ 
ples, not illustrated, there are of this kind, 
Ketchum, 1847, Platt, 1849, and Pierson 1850. 
The four “ advancing only” contains the old 
Roman knife, which cuts on the same principle 
as a weed hook; Gladstone’s bean-cutter, a 
skeleton plow, with a serrated wing in place 
of mold-board, invented in 1826; Esterly, U. 
S. A., 1844, a straight edge, like a levelling- 
box, for cutting corn (?); and Blackie, 1851, a 
large triangular knife, worked like a snow¬ 
plow. 
The five “cutters worked by hand,” are the 
English hook, and scythe; Javanese hook or 
‘‘ ani ;” Meares’ large shears, on two wheels, 
invented in 1800; and Taylor’s horizontal re¬ 
volving hook, on a vertical shaft, driven by 
an auger handle, 1851. 
Such is the cursory review of the “ forms and 
movements of the cutters of reaping imple¬ 
ments” proposed. First, we have the reaping- 
hook, coeval almost with our race, by which 
the corn is cut and gathered at the same opera¬ 
tion. Second, the scythe, a very old implement 
also, by which the operations of cutting and 
gathering are performed separately. Next, the 
Roman lance-toothed comb, where the cutting, 
gathering, and harvesting are rudely performed 
at once. Then commences a series of improve¬ 
ments. Pitt, in 1786, giving a circular motion 
to the Roman knife; Boyce, in 1799, fixes hooks 
on the periphery of a horizontal wheel. In 
1800 another old implement is brought to bear 
upon the harvest-field by Meares, viz., a pair of 
large shears, moved on two wheels, and having 
a gathering-bow fixed on the back of each 
blade. The shears are open, wheeled forward 
into the standing grain, when the handles, 
formed like those of a plow, are brought to¬ 
gether, the shears cutting the grain, at the 
same time the bows on the back holding it fast. 
The operator then draws the machine back on 
its wheels, opens -the handles, allowing the grain 
thus to drop in handfuls or small sheaves, as 
first ideas may have run, when the open shears 
are again pushed forward. In 1805 Plucknett 
brings out his circular scythe, by placing 
scythes on the circumference of a wheel, as 
Boyce had done hooks six years previously. In 
1807 Salmun improves Meares’ shears by driv¬ 
ing a series of them by means of reciprocating 
action. Dobbs, in 1814, puts a serrated edge 
on Plucknett’s circular scythe, while Scott in 
the following year places serrated blades on the 
horizontal wheel of his predecessors. Ogle, in 
1822, invents his reciprocating knife, and mo¬ 
tion being communicated by a horizontal work¬ 
ing beam, moved alternately by cogs on the 
two wheels on which the machine is borne. In 
1831, Manning (U. S. A.) places upon Ogle’s 
knife Scott’s projecting blades, having two 
smooth cutting edges, producing reciprocating 
action by means of a crank, as Salmon had 
done. In 1834, M’Cormick (U. S. A.) moves 
Ogle’s knife in the same manner, and also ser- 
rates its straight edge, as Dobbs had done the 
circular of Plucknett. In 1850 he produces 
Scott’s projecting blades on Ogle’s straight re¬ 
ciprocating knife, now serrated, as Scott him¬ 
self had done 35 years previously on the peri¬ 
phery of Boyce’s horizontal wheel. Then fol¬ 
lows a long list of minor alterations of project¬ 
ing blades on Ogle’s reciprocating knife, in order 
to improve its cutting edge and motion, with 
which our readers generally must be familiar; 
and lastly, Harkes’ improvement on Plucknett’s 
circular scythe at Lincoln .—Marie Lane Express. 
THE CORN CROP. 
Cincinnati, Sept. 12, 1854. 
As the corn crop is now the great question, 
and the newspapers have so misled the public, 
that every farmer begins to think that there is 
no corn except in his immediate vicinity, I will 
give you the result of my observations after 
traveling over most of the Western States. I 
am forced to believe that, with the increased 
breadth of land planted, there will be a full 
average crop. Wisconsin and Iowa will have 
(in the increased breadth planted) 50 per cent, 
more than an average crop. 
Illinois will have a full average crop—an ex¬ 
cess in Northern Illinois, which will more than 
make up for the deficiency in Southern Illinois. 
Missouri does not raise any season much corn, 
but the portions of the State where they raise 
the most have fair crops, while, in other por¬ 
tions there is a falling off. 
I should say the State would produce three- 
fourths of an average crop. 
Indiana and Ohio have a full average over 
two-thirds of those States; the other one-third 
may average one-quarter short. Kentucky has 
in many sections an average crop, while in some 
counties there is not more than one half an 
average; but, I should think, taking the whole 
State, there would be two-thirds to three-fourths 
of an average crop. 
Tennessee, the great corn State, it is now 
generally admitted, will have an average crop ; 
while there is a large excess over any former 
year in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and 
Georgia. 
The wheat and oat crops throughout the 
West, are much the largest ever grown, and the 
grain crops are much better! 
I hear every where bad accounts of the po¬ 
tato crop, and also of most kinds of vegetables. 
It is estimated that the number of hogs in 
the West is 25 percent, over last year; and 
the question is, whether they will be all fat¬ 
tened. I have not yet seen any section of coun¬ 
try where there was not corn enough to fatten 
all the hogs. Even in Kentucky, where there 
is the greatest scarcity of corn, I feel confident 
all the hogs large enough for killing the coming 
season, will be fattened—some, perhaps, that 
would have been kept over with a large corn 
crop. The census of Kentucky and Indiana 
shows a surplus over last year of 800,000 hogs; 
so that, as far as corn and hogs are concerned, 
no one need starve, and the alarm and panic 
that the newspapers and speculators have crea¬ 
ted have done much injury to the consumer. 
I found every where a large quantity of old 
corn. It is estimated that on the banks of the 
Illinois river there is now a million and a quarter 
bushels of corn ; and in the immediate vicinity, 
there not being room on the river, as much or 
more waiting a rise in the Illinois river; and 
the average price back from the river, is 20 to 
25 .cents per bushel. Agreeable to your re¬ 
quest, I have given you my views on the state 
of the crops, etc., after a careful examination.— 
Gorr. of Jour, of Com. 
