378 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Dec. 
THE CAST IRON PLOW. 
An article has been published in the last volume of 
the Transactions of the New-York State Agricultural 
Society, giving statements of the history of th.e Cast 
Iron Plow, which contains serious errors. As the im¬ 
provement of the plow has a very important connection 
with the history of agricultural improvement, it is pro- 
per that these statements should be noticed. Although 
the volume has been published some months, the arti¬ 
cle alluded to escaped observation until very recently. 
The author of the article, says — u Thus, about 
the year 1790, the plow in England was perfected 
to the point that it was made entirely, in its body, 
of cast iron. A single improvement yet remained 
to be effected; a greater hardness in the share; and 
this was made by Robert Ransome, [of Ipswich, Eng¬ 
land,] who in 1803, took out a patent for* case harden¬ 
ing , or what we term chilling the points and edges of 
the share.” 11 It will thus be seen that the cast-iron 
plow is wholly an English invention.”—“ We now 
come to a very important improvement in the material 
and manufacture-of plows in America, which so cheap¬ 
ened their construction.—This important improvement 
which I allude to, is the cast-iron plow complete,” &c. 
(e a Mr. Newbould, an ingenious farmer ”— u to him 
should be awarded the honor of its introduction.” Yet 
the same article states, “ he took no interest in getting 
it into general use.” 
The same article further states, that u Peter T. 
Curtenius, of the city of New-York, kept plows for 
sale as early as the year 1800, the shares of which 
were of cast-iron; but whether these were got up by 
himself or made from Mr. Newbould’s patterns, I have 
not yet been able to ascertain.” 11 These plows were 
highly approved of, as may be seen by reference to an 
article on the subject by Col. John Smith.” This arti¬ 
cle is in the old N. Y. Transactions—the volume is be¬ 
fore us, and these are Col. Smith’s words:—“ It is 
cast in the form of a Dutch share, after the best model 
that could be procured by the society, [and therefore 
had nothing to do with u Newbould’s patterns,”] with 
this exception, that the edge is not complete, and not 
so wide by about three inches as it will be when 
finished by the false edge, which is made of wrought-iron 
and steel, and fastened on with rivets”!! “ They may 
be had of Mr. Peter T. Curtenius, in New-York, either 
with or withont the edge, which is made of wrought-iron 
and steel” In other words, it was a cast-iron Bull 
plow, with a wrought-iron and steel edge, neither more 
nor less, as every old farmer acquainted with the old 
Bull plow, must see at a glance. 
Again, we are told, “ Mr. Peacock, of New-Jersey, 
made a great improvement in plows, as early, t am 
informed, as 1805, by substituting the cast-iron for the 
wooden mouldboard. The form of this, however, and 
the manner of putting his plow together, were very 
imperfect.” The article further adds, “ In the year 
1808, Peacock’s plow was so far improved as to be 
made, share and mouldboard, both of cast-iron.” This 
appears to be quite an error. Harris, in Cayuga Co., 
either manufactured, or kept the Peacock plow for 
sale, in 1814 or 1815, and we have the authority of 
some of the most etninent. farmers of that county, that 
these plows had a wrought share, like the old Penn¬ 
sylvania plow. 
Again, “ Mr. Edwin A. Stevens, of Hoboken, New- 
Jersey, took up the plow in 1817, and for nearly four 
years, devoted his ingenious talents to its improvement. 
Mr. Stevens was the first in this country to make use 
of the process of cold chilling the base of the land-side 
and lower edge of the share—a most important im¬ 
provement, which was also embraced in his specification 
for a patent.” This patent was obtained in 1821. 
Now, there is ample evidence, which can be fur¬ 
nished from the best witnesses now residing in Cayuga 
county, N. Y., that Jethro Wood chilled his cast-iron 
edges long before, but he appears never to have thought 
of patenting that process. 
Such errors as these, must seriously weaken the con¬ 
fidence of the reader in the accuracy of other state¬ 
ments in the article. 
An object of the writer appears to be, not only to 
deprive Jethro Wood of all merit, but to represent him 
as a wilful imposter, which is done in these words:— 
11 His [Newbould’s,] was undoubtedly the first cast- 
iron plow ever used in the United States, and to him 
should be awarded the honor of its introduction, al¬ 
though thus far it has been generally accorded to 
Jethro Wood, of New-York, who had the shrewdness 
to get out a patent for one in 1814. He undoubtedly 
derived his idea from Mr. Newbould—who took no in¬ 
terest in getting it into general use—or from those of 
English manufacture, and was never entitled to the 
least merit as the originator or improver of the cast- 
iron plow. Mr. Newbould made his improvement 
without any knowledge of the progress in the same di¬ 
rection, in England.” Why does the writer extend 
this charity to Newbould, but deny it entirely to Wood? 
No evidence for this heavy charge is given. Such ran¬ 
dom assertions should not be made by an impartial 
historian. 
But what are the facts of the case? Fortunately, 
we have evidence of the very strongest character,— 
evidence which stood the test at the final trial of 
Wood’s patent,* before the United States Court, at Al¬ 
bany, in 1845, where the following points in the in¬ 
vention were triumphantly sustained;—and which prove 
beyond cavil, that Jethro Wood was substantially the 
inventor of the modern improved cast-iron plow. 
1st. The form of the mould board; 
2d. The construction of a standard of cast iron for 
connecting the mould board with the beam; 
3d. The cast shoe or edge, which is fastened without 
screws; 
4th. Fastening the plow-handles by means of cast 
loops; 
5th. The manner of fastening the landside to the 
mould board without screws. 
These were mainly the improvements which have so 
cheapened the construction of plows, “ that those for 
one horse, strong and well made, after the most im¬ 
proved patterns, can now be had in New-York at $2 to 
$4 each, and a two-horse plow from $5 to $7.” These 
improvements, by placing the best plows within the 
reach of the smallest farmer, have been of incalcula¬ 
ble benefit to the country, and been worth millions in 
the aggregate—yet we are told in this article, that 
Jethro Wood “ was never entitled to the least merit as 
the originator or improver of the cast iron plow”!! 
What confidence can the reader have in the accuracy 
of such a history, where mere assertion, tending to in¬ 
jure the memory of a worthy man, as well as eminent 
* This patent was obtained in 1819—with his previous patent of 
1814, no one has had anything to do for nearly 30 years. 
