412 
THE CULTIVATOR, 
Dec 
McCormick’s Reaper. 
Review of the Report of the Committee on the Trial of 
Reaving and Mowing Machines at Geneva. 
New-York, Nov. 13th, 1852. 
Mr Editor —With your permission I now proceed to redeem the 
promise made in my card, published in the Sept. No. of the Cultiva¬ 
tor, to prove from the facts reported by the Committee of the N. Y. 
State Ag. Society, at their trial at Geneva, in July last, as well as 
as from other facts not reported by them, the superiority of my reap¬ 
ing and mowing machine over all others in use—the award of said 
committee to the contrary notwithstanding. 
This Report—since published in pamphlet form—says: “The es¬ 
tablished principle in machines, in regard to cutting tools, that an 
acute angle is the most effective on substances of woody fibre, seems 
to hold good in the form of a reaper knife ; this is apparent upon com¬ 
paring the angles of the several knives, as for instance the height of 
Mr. McCormick’s knife, from its base line to the apex, is five-eighths 
of an inch, the base being 4f inches; the power required to cut a 
swath six feet wide , ad aiming at the rate of 101 feet per minute, was 
5 pounds 31-100 for every inch, in width of the swath. The height of 
Mr. Burrall’s knife, (Hussey’s in principle, and which received the 
first premium as a Reaper) above the base is 3J inches, the base being 
3 inches; in this case the power consumed to advance 103 feet in a 
minute, is 6 pounds 66-100, the swath being five feet wide” 
This principle is further explained by tiie committee, as follows: 
“ McCormick’s machine cuts with knives of a peculiar form, being- 
broad at the base, short in length, and having a sickle edge, working 
between spear-shaped teeth or fingers Again, as tested by the dy¬ 
namometer, the power per inch of cutting edge required to operate 
Manny's machine in reaping —which received the 1st premium for 
mowing, and for reaping and mowing combined—was found to be 
26 j per cent, more than mine, (5.2 and 6.6) and in mowing, 27 per 
cent, more, (4.8 and 6.1.) And the power required to operate Mr. 
Burrall’s machine, was still more than that required to operate Mr. 
Manny’s, as ascertained by the same test. 
Now I submit whether it would be possible to establish the superi¬ 
ority of the cutting power of one machine over another, more clear¬ 
ly and conclusively than is here decided, of mine over Manny’s and 
Burrall’s, by a test that could not err. A patented philosophical prin¬ 
ciple is introduced into the cutting apparatus of my machine, by 
which 27 to 30 per cent, of the motive power is saved, as demon¬ 
strated by a practical test, and accounted for in the plain reasoning of 
the report, which is unanswerable! This proved, and all that can 
then be said of Manny's machine is but so much more for mine; 
and I therefore claim the award made to him, as one made to me, 
and thus to have both report and award in my favor, for with the 
single exception of the particular manner of “raising and lowering 
it,” to effect which its construction is materially deteriorated in other 
respects, it is substantially my machine in principle—without my im¬ 
provement, as explained. 
And here comes the “ imposition ” resulting to the public from 
such awards, alluded to in my former card, and which will further 
appear hereinafter. A patented machine goes from one of these 
trials with the endorsement of the committe of a Stale Society, as the 
best machine, without regard to whether the particular feature in it 
claimed as new, or patented, is the ground in whole or in part, of its 
alleged superiority—or what features in it are indenlical with those of 
other machines; but the owner immediately disposes of it, or offers 
it, as the case may be, as the premium machine! To meet this diffi¬ 
culty, it was proposed, (by my representative) to the committee, at the 
trial in question, to call out and present to the public, the claims of the 
different parties entering the lists for competition, to novelty and 
utility; and the proposition was understood to have been agreed to, 
but was not carried out. 
To effect the “ raising and lowering ” of Manny’s machine at 
pleasure, while progressing at its work, as is claimed, its construc¬ 
tion is complicated; while as a Reaper, its proportions are forced, 
contracted, and so imperfect as to be next to a failure in every day 
practice, which view, too, is sustained by the following, from the 
Geneva report: “ The delivery is not perfect, owing to an elevation 
of the apron or platform, which rises about eight inches above its 
lowest plane. The necessary consequence is an uneven or disturbed 
condition of the gavels.” Nor is this raising and lowering , after all, 
of importance, for it is preposterous to talk of the same man, at the 
same time attending regularly to driving the team, and constantly to 
adjusting the machine to the inequalities of the surface of the ground, 
and getting over obstructions in the way, which are often concealed 
from the eye; and the best regulator of this in grass cutting, where 
alone it is required, is a self-adjusting arrangement, that enables it to 
accommodate itself to such inequalities—as mine is now constructed. 
From what has already been shown from the Geneva report, 
together with the further statement therein made, that two acres of 
grass were cut by my machine in 56 minutes, and the same by 
Ketohum’s, (Hussey’s principle, which obtained the 2d premium for 
mowing) in one hour and 26 minutes, with a blank opposite to Man¬ 
ny’s & Burrall’s—(the latter a failure,) taken in connection with 
what is known throughout the country—the world, I might say—of 
the general operation of my machine, I might perhaps ‘-rest” here. 
But it may not be amiss to notice a few other points in the 
case ; and first I shall make a further reference to \\vo figures of the 
report, beginning with Seymour Morgan's Machine, for which was 
awarded the third premium (over mine,) and it being perhaps a closer 
imitation of mine than any other —some evidence of which is found 
in the fact that in a late suit vs. them, for infringing my patents, a New 
York jury found a large verdict in my favor. And as this is a strong 
case to exemplify both the character of the Geneva report, and the in¬ 
jurious results to the community growing out of such reports, I trust 
to be excused for dwelling somewhat upon this case. And oy way 
of fortifying the judgment of the jury in the case, and so far refuting 
the many misstatements made by these and other infringers prejudi- 
dicial to my just claims, I must beg leave to make a short quotation 
from the charge of Judge Nelson in the case, as follows: 
“ It is said by the learned counsel for the defence, that, admitting all 
this to be true, just as it has been described, and claimed in the pa¬ 
tent, that still there was not novelty or skill enough in it to constitute 
an invention within the meaning of the patent law; and some of the 
witnesses called as experts, have expressed the same opinion. 
“Now, as bearing materially upon this question of ingenuity and 
skill, essential to bring out the improvement claimed by the plaintiff, 
it will be well to recur for a moment to the history of the improve¬ 
ment. Snebly tried it in 1833 and ’34. You, gentlemen, remember 
his account of it; and he said he had been engaged in experiments 
upon it since 1S25 or ’26, and had abandoned it. His contrivance was 
to bring the grain to the raker, so that he could rake it off and stand 
on the machine. Hussey tried it, used the same device and arrange¬ 
ment, and gave it up. The patentee has been engaged since 1834 in 
experimenting and improving his machine, devoting his whole time 
to the production of a successful reaping instrument, and he did not 
succeed in gelling a practical position for the raker on the machine 
until the year 1846 or ’47, and nobody had accomplished it before, al¬ 
though we are now in the middle of the nineteenth century. These 
are the only persons, those to whom I have alluded, for aught ihere 
appears, who have ever undertaken the experiment, or to work it 
out, and the patentee is the only one who has succeeded, notwith¬ 
standing it is supposed to be so very simple, that any ordinary me¬ 
chanic, laying his eye on the machine, could work out the result 
without the necessity of any olher ingenuity.” 
Now this trial was fi r infringements of my third patent, the trial 
for infringements of my second patent, embraced in the same suit, 
having been evaded by the oath of the parties to the absence of a wit¬ 
ness whose deposition had been taken! Since the trial of this cause, 
these parties, through three of their counsel, and several of their inte¬ 
rested “witnesses called as experts”—a dozen signers all told—have 
circulated extensively a pamphlet reileraling their/aNe statements of 
want of novelty, skill and utility in all my claims to improvements in 
reaping machines. Of course they will now be believed! 
So much for the character of another of the premium machines.* 
Next, as to the report of facts in relation to it; and here 1 shall take 
down from the “ tabular statements ” the figures representing each 
of the premium machines, as follows ; 
REAPING. 
1 Time consumed in cutting 
| two acres. 
Absolute draught. 
Draught per inch, of cut¬ 
ting edge. 
Width of Swath. 
Mode of delivery. 
Quality of work 50 being 
perfect, and 25 the work 
of a cradle. 
h m. 
lbs. 
! lbs. 
feel 
Manny's, . 
2.34 
400 6.6 
5.6 
[side 
311 
Burrall's, . 
2.48 
400 6 66 
5.tj\side or back 
33 
S. ff Morgans '.. 
1.35 
i 425 5.91 
6.0 [side 
29 
McCormick's,.. 
2.23 
37515.21 
O.OIsidtf 
30 
MOWING. 
une'n 
good 
good 
good 
Av. ofstubl'e. 
good 
good 
good 
good 
Manny's, .1 
!....] 4001 
6.1) 
4-61 
I 34 
2i 
) clog twice 
Ketchum's, . .. .1 
1.26 450 
8. 
4.8 
33 
3{ 
f 
Me'Cormick's, . | 
1 56| 3501 
4.8[ 
6. i 
1 161 
5 
do freqnt'ly 
Having already referred to the great difference in the drafts of 
these machines, in favor of mine, from the figures given above, a 
word only need be added in relation to them. From them it is seen 
that my machine cut the two acres (of grass) in less time than any 
other; —and, notwithstanding that, from the tables, in every point of 
difference, mine is found superior to Seymour § M.'s ; the award of 
tiie committee directly contradicts the figures and facts. Again, my 
machine cut a swath a foot wider than Mr. Burrall’s, and 6 inches 
wider than Mr. Manny’s, and laid the grain bctlerthan either —“from 
the manner of delivery at the side, a twist was observable” with 
Burrall’s. 
But, in one point —the quality of the work, and that truly an impor¬ 
tant one—the figures in the tables show the performance of Burrall’s 
and Manny’s machines to have been better than mine. Upon this 
point, however, there was, to say the least, a difference of opinion. 
Your own intelligent correspondent, Mr. Editor, wrote as follows from 
the trial: “ Hussey’s machine was next tried, and its operation was 
fine, quite similar to that of Burrall’s, dropping the grain behind the 
machine. Neither of these machines (alluding to Burrall’s and Hus¬ 
sey’s) was furnished with a reel, which may have been the reason 
that it was necessary to drive the horses at a rapid pace, too much so 
for all-day work with ordinary teams.” Of Manny’s, he says, 
“ This was thought by some, who witnessed its operation, to be the 
best combined machine, or for using both as mower and reaper, al¬ 
though for the latter purpose alone, it hardly came up to some others. 
* When it is known that it requires all the muscular power of the 
stoutest man, at the same time to collect with his wide and heavy 
rake, and get the grain directly behind the platform, it must be clear 
that it can’t by that process, in heavy grain, be twisted or brought 
round to the side of the machine. It is rather amusing, too, to ob¬ 
serve how handsomely the L fiy wheel ” in Burrall’s Machine is 
commented on, as a new and equalising improvement, while the same 
in my machine was unobserved, and which was used in it, perhaps, 
before Mr. Burrall ever thought of a reaping machine—certainly, 
before he ever made one! 
