The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-03


i meI IN my patent Of 1884 but o,ss Of alt the1
ferdn3 parts of my machine-which would OIL
be attended by the bill a. little mora than W
years. to bring it to the date of the other two pa
tents as proposed, and by which its ralidity scO.I
not be Gtg6ted, it would seem that my befor
Congress could hardly Be in any manner affected b
tie claim made BY Moore e HascaN And yet
has been said that this Moore & Hascal claim We
to kill McCormick's bifl-that ssif Moore s. Has
l calls bill didn't pass, McCormck's should NOT
Now y, after what has been seen of Moore & Has
tcalps Dill and claim, the Senate shall think prope
to amend the bill reported in my favor
by striking from it (the tpo years. ertension of
my patent Of 1845, ,chich tDoud from 1t tn
tchole ground Of the cfdnsor against 1t By the Moor
r HascdU party, their first experiment having
been after my first patiently I shall be satisfied
rectness and propriety of my application.
the principles ofmy machine icere not perecteo
for many gears after the fret experiments with it
orthe reasons understood on all hands-the ques
ton is does anybody else claim to have perfected
/ it before did 1t is said by Seymour & Morgan,
that Bel's machine, of Scotland is substantially
the same machine, except e.cutting apparatus,
Tin other words, Moore & Hascail's sickle y aofich
is not true. Bells is combination of shears to
cut, a reel to gather, and an endless revolving
apron to discharge in swath, and propelled from
the rear, (the latter not abandoned by them. as
falsely stated by s. 8 NJ Mine is The sickle to
cut, combined with fingers to hold up the grain to
IT, reel to gather with platform to collect and hold,
together with the side discharge into sheav
the side draugH which was my first arrangement,
as explained; the two machines, therefore, being
essentially different in their principles of opera
ton; while, as stated, the mere renewal ola patent
secures nothing not valid; and an original claim if
found too broad, to that extent be disclaimed,
according to law. si5 81. fr5s ii szFSf 49,, s. &
"scollop SICKLE" and claim to have been iavented
by Moore Hascall in 1885, it is in the first place.
not true that such sickle used by them in 1886.
On the contrary, the testimony of Andreac Y.
miro f,,t1s H.
place where it has been kept at work,) for whom
s.the first acre of wheat had ever been cut with
said machine in 1885," and who has ssfrom. that
time The present date BEEN familiar with all said
machine's operations" taken in the Seymour
Morgan Infringement suit, goes to show 1912 as
the time fthe first of it; and whether they were
the hrst to simply vary the form of my invention
OF the reversed cut on the straight eickle by put
ting the sickte edge andented smooth edged
blade long IN use by Hussey and others, is not ma
terial, not being patentabIe, the effect being the
same, ifiit is proposed by that means to vary, by
lowering the angle of the cutting sections neces-
one of the improvements they seek to have patent
ed under the special act. My cutting, blade was
used straight, however, until 1851, and since that
time slightly varied inch in Al inches in lengthy
angle Of the spear head finger which has the effect
to gather and hold the grain to the cutting edge,
and prevent the necessity of an abrupt indenfed
edge IN connexion with the straight finger auitout
'ss fos"s"'6 cUeS1 VI hlJ PdtcHtSQ uQgef, as more
Partlcularly seen presently in extracts from the
New York report.
fit be intended to PROBE stle snoestion, of this
'improveraenr since the date of hispatent and in
clude 1t IN his congress patent under that clause
in the bill providing for such improvements then
there ia another practical exemplfcation of the de
sign of it to be applied to ,.,spatenabIe ianprope
ments Under it, in that case, sfhe scolop sickle,
notc so much used, Gas seymour and Morgan say )
is intended to be patented as an s.improyementn
simply, without being subjected to the test of ma
tent law, and with no qualification in the bill as to
the sort OF improvement, respectfully submit
whether under 1t more would be required than to
prove an Improvement, which would of course be
done-though Mr.. HtIssey has always considered
his blade better without than with teeth IF So ali
persons using the sickle edge, repeat, on the
Hussey blade, Though not claimed sas his inyen
ton, J "now so much used :, would be called on to
account to Moore and Hascall for what thew hod
done 1t may be in this way that ssofteYs', are rel
ferred to by Hiram Moore, in the statements made
to the two Michigan witnesses as aforesaid But
certainly the sickle being in my first patent and
the reversed cut sickle in .my second merely
changing the zigzag smooth edge into a serrated
one Tin that case having necessarily reversed eff
fect2 could not be paentable Under ersting iasos.
The following extract from Judge Nelson's
charge on the trial of my suit Uersus Seymour and
Morgan bears on this point, aRwell as the general
merits of that case:
cit is said by the learned counsel for the defence
that admitting all this TO be true, connecting that
the plaintiff was the first person who succeeded in
getting practical place upon the machine for the
raker to ride and do his work; adEnittinr all this
to be true just as II has been described and claimed
in the patent, that still there was not novelty or
skill enough in it to constitute invention within
the meaning OF the patent law; and some of the
witnesses called as experts have expressed the
same opinion. lts 80
CHOW, as bearing materially upon this ouestion
of ingenuity and skill, essential to bring out The
improvement claimed by the plaintiff, It will be
Smelly tried it in 1888 and ,34 You 1
gentlemen. remember his account of it: and he
said he had been engaged in experiment upon il 4
since lS25gor 70, and had abandoned it. His con.
trivance was to bring the grain to the rarer 90
that he could rake it off and stand on the machine
Hassey tried it, used the same device and arrange
ment, and gave it up. The patentee himself has
been engaged since 1884 in experimenting and
his machine, devoting his whole time TO
the production OF successful reaping instrument,
and he did not succeed in getting practical pos-
ton for the raker on the machine until the wear
1916 or ~, and nobody had accomplished it before,
although we are now in the middle of nne1eentb
century. These the only persons, those TO
whom have alluded, for aught there appears.
who have ever undertaken the experiment. or to
work 1t out, and the patentee is the only one who
has succeeded notwithstanding it is supposed tn he
so very simple that any ordinary mechanic. Iaving
his eye on the machine, could work out the resf}
without the necessity of ahy other ingenuity -
cit seems to me exceedingly difficult to reconcile
the history of this Improvement with the asa,,rnn
ton thatit is destitue:of ingenuity and skill.
cept that belonging to any intelligent mechanic,
and therefore not the subject of patent pV'7'
8 Having now, as trust, unmasked this bantlino-
OF Moore and Hascau, and shown its real deformitv
shall now notice, in their ORDER such points in
the article Of Seymour & Morgan, referred to, as
are not embraced in the foregoing ~ ss7'-l
They seem to suppose that if my Reaper il at
present shown to be better than those that infringe
my patents in the manufacture of them INV chance
for an extension of them would be good. and thew
proceed TO give, and comment on, certain rerorfs
OF trials, &C., in manner and with a view to ii
vert the attention of members Of Con from the
great trials that were made in England in the last
harvest between Hussey's and nv machines in
which the decision of the jurors of the great Exhi-
bition OF All Nations in favor Of mine acas fuHu
con tirmed--in one of which trials more than one
hundred acres of grain were cut. And after pre- |
senting the points decided in cutting an acre or
two, on stormy day at the close of the harvest of
1851, after bad left England, with no chance to |
test the powers Of the machines, &c.--as the Sc
quel trinmphantly proved there in 1852 they refer
to "his lmy)s defeats in comparing with American
machines at home, as follows: They refer fret I'd I
fancy trial made at Springfeid Ohio, in the last
harvests when the committee reported I ~ quoted
by Seymour Morgan) Of my Reaper. that 81 I
cuts the grain very we'll. good wide swath. {six /
feets) but it requires mora Sfrength Of tesm than I
most Others 81; ypils Aassa 81 aAs Ns.a 1ar4
eosiid nat les .sa!sfe st.s ~ s5sAd9