The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-03
THE REPU BLIC.
McCORMICK,S
Reply to Seymour and Morgan In his Pa
tent Reaper Case.


WAsHINeToN, D. c., January "a, 1853.
Ma. EDrTos. After hard- fought battle through
the courts Of lao with "Seymour & Morgan, oil
bfockPort, n "" famous as intringes of ma
patents, resulting 80 far they say in an appeal
to the Supreme Court of the United States from a
Judgment against them, bad not expected to be
openly confronted by them in my application to
Congress for the renewal of my erpired patent
and (oniy) too years extension of the second tc
the date of my third patent / doubt not howev-
err, that if through the instrumenaity of sc Moore
r HascaU, of Michigan Seymour and Morgan
can effect transfer of their case to Congress :
that honorable body into patent office and
coWt-l was going to say of ta,r, but that ia not
precisely the sort of court-and procure the grant
OF Congress patent without reg ard to any Of the
forms Of lao to be complied with at the Patent Oh
hee and BY which they will have the right to prove
the snrsntiom Of any thing Gas having been in their
model from time immemoral-ift they can effect
stsch a transfer Of their case. / say il would un-
doubtediy be very agreeable to them, and worth
an effort. But with what grace do these parties
come forward to publish their oton shame, They
who, after manufacturing for three years under
my patent BY contract, and not satisfied with the
use OF my expired patent nfringed my two subse-
quent patents In the manufacture and sale of my
machines, and are continuing the to this
day, they openly present themselves in opposition
TO the extension of my patent the disinterested
friends OF the farmer, the faithful defenders of the
pubic good against s'monopoliesl" Who would
have suspected its-the wolf interceding for the
lamb
After printing and circulating unfounded pam
phlets by thousands throughout the country, at
ne TRIALS or reapers, and publishing the same in
the newspapers Of the country, fer the purpose of
g arousingo and q waking up'' general opposi-
ton to me, through circumstances to Con gress
soithoat effect: still not satsfed-though with
their attorney, R. j Gillet, Solicitor of the Trea-
sury, upon the ground-they at last themselves
openly come forward and make the publication in
question, using pretert for it the publication of
certain reports on English trials of Hussey's and
my Ksapers in the last harvest, copied originally
LINN n rfaf
regret having to request of you so much of
your valuable space Mr.. Editor for a work of this
sort but trust that the present necessity of this
course, in justice to myself in repelling through
the same medium the base attack made on me a nd
my Reaper through your columns, will be duly
appreciated by yourself and others regret it
the less, however, having been aware of the fact
that the infringing interests of the country in con-
nexlon with the advocates of the bill now before
Congress, for the extension and grant of patents
to Moore q HascGA, have by means of interested
agents and otherwise long been engaged in pri-
yately incorporating me to members of Con
gress, by statements designed and calculated to
prejudice their minds and mislead them, which it
seemed difficult, not to say impossible, fully to
meet, and which trust now effectually to dissi-
pate.
The first and most important question which
shall further notice and answer, is as TO the real
connexions between this ssSey pdour & Morgan, OF
Brockport, New York, - in u6w presenting them
selves before Congress, and the Moore + HascaH
patent
that am and have been in the use of their SICKLE
General Cass in the of the discussion in the
Sooate, stated that sit was the sickle that Mr..
Moore invented, and which practically works,
and which he has used in every machine which
does works" Seymour = Morgan cay stills kind
OF sickle was invented and used in Michigan nine
years betore my patent Tin 1859 tohiie They no,v
sag .'that all this old and common property land
all but the cutting blade, invented and used before
Mccormick commenced his improvement) would
become his''-aluding to the claims in my exp red
patent Of 1884, and the renewal of the same These
are the statements thus publicly made, while every
body knows that ''the sckle'' has been one of the
prominent features in my :. Vrginia Reaper ever
since e was RsaperIMr. Hussey using smooth
edged blade Now what are the facts?
From the year 1881 to the present time the
vibrating sickle, in connexion with fingers sup
ports to the cutting, has been or less in use
IN my machine In every harvest 1t is found in
my patent of June 81, 1884, the year before the first
experiment made by Moore & Hascall on their
machine, as s,corn TO by Moore himself. In June,
l845, again, the alternate reversed angles Of the
teeth Of The same, in suitable spaces Of few inches
portion of the teeth cutting in one direction and
portion in the others patented, in connection
with the spear-head finger This improvement in
the stckLe, Moore, witness for Seymour e. Nor
gan, swore he invented in 1885 when his fret ex-
pertinent was made; but producing his patent
there was no trace of it to be found In spscifca-
lions Drawings. His model was burnt at the
Patent Office, in 1886, and neither it nor papers
ever restored to that office This is the eztent
Of Moore's CLAIM 10 mis- Tor their) patent of 1886
ne describes, as one OF two different methods of
cutting a. straight sickle, (as IN my patent OF
lS34) vibrating on plate OF iron or STEEL
shaped as the edge of cav, magnified, the teeth
Of the sickle projecting just over the back angles
of these indentatons, which apparatus of course
could not of itself cut at all; as without some
thing to hold the grain up to the blade Tin the
open angles OF the plate) it would slip forward
and pass under the machine, uncut. This calls to
mind another feature OF the cutting arrangement
of this machine, which was the action of the re-
volving reel in close contact with the cutting
blades. The reel was made to gather the heads
of the grain with small portion of the stra,o
as could be done) to the blades and, severing the
straw upon the blades, swept them back to be con
Quoted into the tUeshing part of the machine; but
which would be entirely impracticable for ordinary
cutting aio7se as done, say eight to twelve inches
from the ground, and therefore is not heard of as
being used for that purpose, which can only be eff
fected oy cutting apparatus complete in itself.
and entirely independent of such connexion with
the reel, and hence the Importance of the spear
head finger, combined with my sickle, and pa
tented in lS45, will presently more fully appear
Let Moore & Hascail have, then, the full benefit
of their combination, if theirs.
Now, whilst my patent for the reversed cut
sickle bears date January, 1915, also claim to
have invented il prior TO the date of the Invention
of il by Mooresand Hascaii claimed bg Themselves
But Seymour and Morgan assert that Sc McCor-
Enicky5 machine, patented in 1884, s substantially
thesaIne thing Gas Beis) except the cutting APP
paratus. His imitation was so close to agree in
the absurdity (now abolished by both) of hitchin
the horses behind. Bells machines and all others
fliled until the cutting apparatus improved,
which, though actually invented and used in
Michigan, IN an experimental machine in 1884 or
1885, seems not to have been known by Meteor
mick until alter 1910, four years after the inven-
ton and use OF the scollop sickle by the same par
ties in the same State, and now 80 much usett -
And they then pretend to quote from my petition
60 the Patent Office, written in lS4S, for the purpose
of pyoring that did not know, prior 10 lS40, any
thing of the improvement actually invented and
used in Michigan, in experimental machine in
1884 or 1895, lchtch il is claimed perfected the cut
ting apparatus OF Bells machine and all others
or, they ssaH failed'' until Moore & Hascall's in
vention in 1885, (Tbey seem to have forgotten tht
precise year that Moore swore to-tbe twelve Sey
Iaour & Morgan signers to the pamphlet remon
STRANGE enormously ~ stated it in 1884 Al
that TINS claim rests upon has been shown; anf
without attempting to follow these garbled ex
tracts and quotations, | shall presently show,
now proceed to set forth my caims from m!
patents. 3's2
The following are correct extracts from the spe
cificati ons and claims of the patent of 1884:
'sThese cranks are in right line, projecting OF
opposite sides of the axis, and in q line with th
front edge of the platform. To the lower of thes
cranks is attached, by joint the crank, hav
ing wooden pin, long cutter of steel, groove t
or uotched on Its lower edge like reapiug hook