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

mens "a my patent Of ls45--but one 81 nil t1ed;
ferdn parts of my machine-which would OIL
be extended by the bill little more than ts
years. to bring it to the date OF the other two p
tents as proposed, and by which its ualidity
not be Gfeted, it would seem that my befo
| Congress could hardly be IN any manner affected
! tie claim made BY Moore & HascaM And yet
has been said that this Moore & Hasca claim ws
to kill McCormick's bifl-that ssif Moore & Hal
Calls bill didn't pass, McCormck's should not.
Now after what has been seen of Moore Has
BIZ and claim, the Senate shall think prope
to amend the bill unanimously reported in my favo
by striking from it 1.-THE tro years ertensiOn of
my patent Of 1915, .chich sco,sld resnoue from 1t
,uole ground Of the cidn,or against It By the Moo,
+ Hasc4 party, (their first experiment havin
kbeen after my first patent,l Ishall be satisfied
feeling that have sufficiently vindicated the cor
trectness and propriety of my application.
IT the principles ofmy machine iceYe not perfecte
for many gears after the fret experiments with it
forthe reasons understood on all hands-the cues
ton is does anybody else claim to have perfecte,
4 it before did 1t is said by Seymour & Morgan
that Bells machine, of Scotland, is substantial,
the same machine. except the cutting apparatus
Gin other words, Moore & Hascal's sickle y auhic
is not true. Bells is a combination of shears /.
cut, reel to gather, and an endless revolving
apron to discharge in swath, and propelled from
| the rear, (the latter not abandoned by them. a
i falsely stated by s. & M Mine is the sickle t.
cut, combined with fingers to hold up the grain t
1t, reel to gather, with platform to collect and hold
together with the discharge into sheaves,
| the side draugk 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 original claim, il
found too broad, can to that extent be disclamed
according to law. saa sFs5r+ Il q zS a
In regard to what Seymour & Morgan term the
"scollop sickle, and claim to have been invented
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 Andresc Y.
nj 70 ~ Il. l.
place where it has been kept at work. for whom
stthe first acre of wheat had ever been cut with
said machine in 1885," and who has fsfrome tina t
time the present date been familiar with all said
machines operations taken in the Seymour s.
Morgan Infringement suit, goes to show 1912 as
the time ofthe first of it; and whether they were
the hrst to simply vary the form of my invention
OF the reversed cut on the straight sickle by put
ting the SICKLE edge indented smooth edged
blade long IN use by Hussey and others, is not ma
terial, not being patentable, the Effect being the
same iflit is proposed by that means to vary, by
lowering, the angle of the cutting sections neces-
one of the improvements they seek have patent
ed under the special act. NY cutting blade was
used straight, however, until 1851, and since that
time slightly varied G inchin 4ainches in lengthy
from right llne IN lis combination aciM the back
angle Of the spear 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 acitout
"S~ '0sos"6 cUSS1 "a NY patented niger, more
particularly seen presently in extracts from the
New York report.
fit be intended to proue ssthe inuention of This
eimprorenenr since the date of hispatent and in
clude 1t IN his Congress patent under that clause
in the bill providing for such Improvement then
there is another practical exempliication of the de
sgn of it to be applied to u,spatentable ianuope-
rents Under 1T, in that case, "the scolop sickleo
not1 so much used, (as Seymour and Morgan saw
is intended to be patented as an s'improyementS
simply, without being subjected to the test of pa
tent law, and with noqualifcation 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. H,tssey has always considered
his blade better without than with teeth IF so ali
persons using the sickle edge, repeat, on the
Hussey 6l1de, enough not claimed as his inyen-
tion,) "now so much used - would be called on to
account to Moore and HascaI for what thew had
done 1t may be in this way that ssofheYs'' are re.
ferred to by Hiram Moore, in the staten ents made
10 the two Mlchlgan witnesses as aforesaid. But
certainly the sickle being in my first patent and
the reversed cut sickle in smy second merely
changing the zigzag smooth edge into a serrated
one Tin that case having necessarily reversed eff.
fect) could not be patentable Under ersting lasps
The following extract from Judge Nelson's
charge on the trial OF my suit Uersus Seymour and
Morgan bears on this point, aswell as the general
merits of that case:
sit is said by the learned counsel for the defence
that admitting all this to be true concedine that
the plaintiff was the first person who succeeded in
getting practical place upon the machine for the
raker to ride and do his works admitting ali this
to be true just as it has been described and claimed
in the patent, 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. 80 - t0e@.s4 5iRlesiS
CHOW, as bearing materially upon this ouestion
of ingenuity and skill, essential to bring out the
improvement claimed by the plaintiff It will be
we'll to.recur tor moment to the history ofthe inn
rrOU Mt u trio IN, i
gentlemen. remember his account of it: and he
said he had been engaged in experiment unon II
since lS25.or '26, and had abandoned it His con.
trlvance 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 himself has
been engaged since 1884 In experimenting and
Improving his machine, devoting his whole time to
the production OF a successful reapiug instrument
and he did not succeed in getting practical nos.
ton forsthe raker on the machine untilth wear.
l646 or ~, and nobody had accomplished it before
although we are now IN the middle ofthe nineteenth
century q These are the only persons, those to
whom | have alluded, for aught there appears.
who have ever undertaken the experiment. or to
work it out, and the patentee is the only one who
mas succeeded, Notwithstanding it is supposed to be
so very simple that any ordinary mechanic Iavino
his eye on the machine, could work out the result
without the necessity of any other ingenuity. 4;
sit seems to me exceedingly difficult to reconcile
me history OF .nls Improvement with the assump
'- c'oA AAASS A1uity anu iSkllI,
cept that belonging to any intelligent mechanic.
and therefore not the subject Of patent s
Having now, as trust, sunmasked this bantlinr
of Moore and HascaL, and shown its real deformity
shall now notice, in their order such points in
the article OF Seymour & Morgan, referred to. as
are not embraced in the foregoing. -
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 renorfs
OF trIais, &C., in manner and with a view To ~ I
vert the attention of members of Con from the
great trials that were made in En- gland in the last
harvest between Hussey's and nv machines in
which the decision of the Jurors of the great Exhi-
bitlon OF All Nations in tauor Of mine acas fulu
con rmed--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 had left England, with no chance to
test the powers of the machines, &c.-as the Sc
quel trnmphantly proved there in 1852 they refer
to- "his (my) defeats in competing with American
machines at home, as follows They refer first to
fancy trial made at Springfield, Ohio, in the last
harvests when the committee reported Gas quoted
by Seymour & Morgan) of my Reaper, that g it
cuts the grain very well, good wide swath, lsix
feets) but it requires more strength of team than
most Others &c.; while, tested at the Nesc York
4siG sometime afterward BY the thermometer. tchich
could not BE- made to eyv the draught of my Reaper
al Il