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


WAsHIseToN. D. c., January "a, 1858. s
Ma. EDITOR: After hard1fought battle through
the courts Of Iatc with Seymour Morgan Of
Brockport, N "" famous as infringers of ma
patents, resulting far, as they say, in an appeal
to the supreme Court of the United States from
Judgment against them, had not expected to be
opsnty confronted by them in my application to
Congress for the renewal of my Expired patent
and (only) too years extension of the second to
the date of my third patent doubt not, howey-
err that If, through the fundamentally of Moore
y HascGu, of Michigan Seymour and Morgan
can effect transfer of their case to Congress :
convert that honorable body into potent office and
court was going to say of fatc, but that ia not
precisely the sort OF CORTLAND procure the grant
OF a Congress patent without reg ard to any Of the
forms Of lao TO be complied with at the Patent Or
ice, and by which they will have right to prove
the inrsstson of any thing Gas having been in their
modeD from time immemorial-if they can effect
saach eranysr Of their case, say il would un-
doubtedly be very agreeable to them, and worth
an effort. But with what grace do these parties
come forward to publish their otcn shame! They
who, after manufacturing for three years under
my patent by contract, and not satisfied with the
use Of my eTpirsd patent, infringed my two subse-
quent patents in the manufacture and sale of my
machines, and are continuing the same 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 ssmonopoliesn w no would
have suspected it?-the wolf interceding for the
lamb
After printing and circulating unfounded PAM
phlets by thousands throughout the country at
ne trials Of reapers, and publishing the same in
the newspapers OF the country, fer the purpose of
" arouslng and waking up' general opposi-
ton to me, through remen5trances to Con gress,
lcsthous effect: still not satisfied-though with
their attorney, IS R. j Giet 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 Husseys and
my Reapers in the last harvest, copied originally
from the London Economist
regret having to request of you 80 much of
your valuable space, Mr.. Editor for work of this
sorts but trust that the present necessity of this
course, IN justice TO myself, in repellng through
my Reaper through your columns, will be duly
appreciated by yourself and others. Iregret it
the less, however, having been aware of the fact
that the infringing interests of the country, in
nexlon with the advocates of the bill now before
Congress. for the extension and grant of patents
TO Moore + Hascau, have by means of interested
agents and otherwise long been engaged in pri-
yately disappearing me to members of Con.
gress, by statements designed and calculated to
prejudice their minds and miaead them, which it
seemed difficult, not to say impossible, fully to
meet, and which trust now effectualiy to dissi-
pate.
The first and most important question which /
shall further notice and answer, is as to the real
connexlon between this "Seyp5Dur & Morgan, OF
Brockport, New x ork, I" in now presenting them-
selves before Congress, and the Moore & HascaH
patesst cGse.
Moore + Hascali, and those ia their interest, say
that am and have been in the Use of their sickle.
General Cass, in the of the discussion in the
Senate, stated that sit was the sickle that Mr..
Moore invented, and which practically works,
and which he has used in. every machine which
does work." Seymour g. Morgan say ssAis kind
OF sickle was invented and used in Michigan nine
years before my patent, lin 1859 soile they notv
say sthat all this old and common property land
All but the cutting blade, invented and used before
MCCORMICK commenced his improvement) would
her }ITp oIas~x
patent Of 1884, and the renewal of the same. These
are the statements thus publicly made while every
body knows that "Ehe sickle has been one of the
prominent features in nv :. rginia Reaper, ever
since it was a Reaper-llr Hussep using smooth
ed ged blade. Now what are the facts?
From the year 1881 to the present time the
vibrating sickle, in connexion with fingers or sup
ports to the cutting, has been more 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 & HascalI on their
machine, as s.oorn to by Moore himself In June,
lS45s again, the alternate reversed Gngles of The
teeth Of The same in suitable spaces of few inches.
aportion of the teeth cutting in one direction and
q portion in the other-is patented, in connection
with the sPear-head finger This improvement in
the sickle, Moore, as witness for Seymour e. Nor
gan, swore he invented in 1885, when his Hrst ex-
pertinent was made, but on producing his patent
there was no trace of it to be found In speciGca-
lions or dratoings. His model was burnt al the
Patent Office, in 1886, and neither it nor papers
ever restored to that office. This is the ertent
of Moore's claim In his Tor their) patent of 1886
ne describes, as one OF two different methods of
cutting, a straight sickle, (as in my patent of
1884 vibrating plate OF iron or steel,
shaped as the edge of saw, magnified, the teeth
of the sickle projecting just over the back angles
of these indentations, 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
o WIS ne oft
volving reel in close contact with the cutting
blades. The reel was made to gather the heads
OF the grain with as small portion of the strao
as could be done) to the blades, and, 5evering the
straw upon the blades, swept them back TO be con
Quoted into the freshing part of the machine; but
which would be entirely mpracticable for ordinary
cutting alone, as done, say eight TO twelve inches
from the ground, and therefore is not heard of as
being used for that purpose, which only be eff
fected by cutting apparatus complete in itself,
and entirely independent of such connection with
head niger, as combined with my sickle, and pa
tented in 1915, will presently 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, 1916, | also claim to
haveinvented it prior to the date of the Invention
of it by Mooresand Hascail claimed by Themselves
But Seymour and Morgan assert that +" McCor-
nick's machine, patented in 1884, ia substantially
the same thing las Beli's) except the cutting APP
paratus. His Imitation was so close to agree in
the absurdity (now abolished by both) of bitchin g
the horses behind. Bells machines and all 9th
failed until the cutting apparatus was improved,
which, though actually invented and used in
Michigan, In an experimental machine in 1884 or
1886, seems not to have been known by Meteor
mick until after 1910, four years after the inven-
ton and OF the scullop sickle by the same par
ties in the same State, and now so much used %
And they then pretend TO quote from my petition
TO the Patent Office, written in 1913 for the purpose
If rvorsng that did not know, prior to 1910, any
thing of the improvement actually invented and
used in Michigan, in an experimental machine in
1884 or 1885, tcich ii is claimed perfected the cut
ting apparatus Of Belts machine and all others
or they ssaH failed'' until Moore & Hascall's in
vention in 1885! (They seem to have forgotten tht
precise year that Moore swore to-the twelve Sey
Inour & Morgan signers to the pamphlet remon
STRANGE enormously % stated it in 1884 al
that Tins claim rests upon has been shown; and
without attempting to follow these garbled ex
tracts and quotations, as | shall presently show,
now proceed to get forth my claims from m.
patents.
The following are correct extracts from the spe
ciieati2ns and claims of the patent of 1884,
ssThese cranks are in right line, projecting OF
opposite sides Of the axis, and in line with th'
front edge of the platform To the lower of thes,
cranks 10 attached, by joint near the crank, hav
ing wooden pin, q long cutter of steef, grooye t