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

isa cldim only relates to a AIM ID fi11stel,
meEy - my tent Of ls4 -but ons Of NIL tlaesi
fer6nt parts of my machine-which would OIL
be attended by the bill a. little more than tw
years. to bring it to the date Of the other two pa
tents as proposed, and by which ats ratidiy scotl
not Be affeted, it would seem that my case befo'
the claim made By Moore e. HascuH And yet
has been said that this Moore & Hascail claim We
| to kill McCormick's BILL that elf Moore & Has
Calls bill didn't pass, McCormick's should not
Now II, after what has been seen of Moore & Has
fcalPs bill and claim, the Senate shall think prope
to amend the bill unanimously reported ia my favor
by striking from it 1.-THE tao years. ertension of
my patent Of 1845, trhich tootsld from 1t til
tch0Le ground Of the ctdn0r against 1t By the Moor
& HascaH party, (their first experiment having
been after my first patent,l Ishall be satisfied
feeling that have sufficiently indicated the cor
rectness and propriety of my application
II the principles ofmy machine icere not perfected
for many gears after the fret experiments with it
forthe reasons understood on all hands-the CUES
ten 49, does anybpdy else claim to have perfected
it before did 1t is said by Seymour & Morgan
that Bell's machine, of Scotland, is substantially
the same machine, except thecutting apparatus
Tin other words, Moore & Hascall's sickle y aohicl
is not true. Bells is combination of shears tc
cut, a reel to gather, and anendIess revolving
apron to discharge in swath, and propelled from
the rear, {the latter not abandoned by them. as
falsely stated by S. & M Mine is the sickle to
cut, combined with fingers TO hold up the grain to
1t, reel to gather with platform to collect and hold
together with the side discharge into sheaves, and
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 ofa patent
secures nothing not valid; and original claim if
found too broad, can to that extent be disclaimed,
according to law. - k.fe zgst I.
In regard to what Seymour & Morgan term the
"scoop sickle,'' and claim to have been iaueated
by Moore Hascall in 1886, it is in the first place.
not true that such sickle was used by them in 1886
fho fa,f, v,oo, A..xJx u
Moore, of Prairie Roude,5 Michigan, the only
place where it has been kept at work. for whom
ssthe 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
machines operations taken in the Seymour s.
Morgan infringement suit, goes to show 1912 as
the time of the first of it; and whether they
the hrst to simply vary the form of my invention
OF the reversed cut on the straight sickle by put
ting the, SICKLE edge ON indented smooth edged
btGde long IN use by Hussey and others, is not ma
terial, not being patentabIe, the efsct 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 to have patent
ed under the special act. My cutting; blade was
used straight, however, until 1851, and since that
time slightly varied 6 inchin AZ inches in lengthy
from right line in It's combination aoih the back
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 indented
edge connexlon with the straight finger, avthout
the holding effect of my patented finger, as more
seen presently in extracts from the
New York report.
fit be intended to PROVE sstle inuention, of this
Improvement" since the date of hispatent, and in
clude it in his Congress patent under that clanse
in the bill providing for such improvements then
there is another practical exemplcation of the de
sign of it to be applied to unpatentabLe improue-
ments. Under 1t, in that case, ethe scolop sickeo
totc so much used, Gas Seymour and Morgan saw =
DatAntPd an ),
simply without being subjected to the test of ma
tent law and with qualification in the bill as to
the sort of Improvement, respectfully submit
whether under it more would be reouired thar n
prove an Improvement, which would of course be
done-though Mr.. Htassey has always considered
his blade better without than with teeth IF So ali
persons using the sickle edge, / repeat, on the
Hisssey blade, Though not claimed "a his ,rvens
tion,) "now so much used, - would be called on to
account to Moore and Hascall for what thew had
done may be in this way that ssothers'' are re.
ferred to by Hiram Moore, in the statements made
to the two Michigan witnesses 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 paentable ,,nder eristing laos
The following extract from judge Nelson's
charge on the trial of my suit rersus Seymour and
Morgan bears on this point, a@weH as the general
merits of that case:
sit is said by the learned counsel for the defence
the plaintiff was the first person who succeeded ia
getting practical place upon the machine for the
raker to ride and do his work; admitting all this
to be true just 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
called as experts have expressed the
same opinion. 500 ~ ti1eA3 afBs
Of ingenuity and skill, essential to bring out the
Improvement claimed by the plaintiff, It will be
we'll to recur for moment to the history Of The inn
proyement. Snebly tried itin 1888 and '34. You,
gentlemen. remember his account of it: and he 4
said he had been engaged in experiment upon il
since IS25.or '26, and had abandoned il. HIS con.
trivance was to bring the grain to the raker. ao
that he could rake it off and stand on the machine
ment, and gave it up. The patentee himself has 1
been engaged since 1884 in experirnenting and
improving his machine, deyoting' his whole time to
the production OF successful reaping instrument,
ana ne oid NOT succeed IN getting practical posi-;
ton for the raker on the machine until the wear
1916 or AZ, and nobody had accomplished it before
although we are now in the middle ofthe nineteenth
century. These are the only persons, those TO
whom nave alluded, Tor aught there appears,
who have ever undertaken the experiment. or to
work it out, and the patentee is the only one who
has succeeded, notwithstanding it ia To no
80 very simple that any ordinary mechanic, LAYING
hrs eye on the achine, could work out the result
without the necessity of any other in gennitv1 =.
sit seems to me exceedingly difficult to reconcile
the history of this improvement with the assump
ton that it is destitue.of ingenuity and skill
cept that belonging to any intelligent mechanic
and therefore not the subject of d patent.
Having now, as trust, sunmasked this bantliner
of Moore and Hascau and shown its real deformity.
shall now notice, IN their order, such points in
the article Of Seymour & Morgan, referred to. "a
are not embraced in the foregoing. =,
They seem to suppose that if my Reaper is at
present shown to be better than those that infringe
my patents IN the manufacture of them m chance
for an extension of them would be good, and thew
proceed 10 give, and comment on certain renorffs
OF trials, &C., in manner and with viewtto 4;
vert the attention of members of 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 Exbi
bition Of All Nations in fauor of mine ,vas ftlv
con trmed-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
lool alter had left England, with no chance to
test the powers, of the machines, &c.-as the Sc
quel tridmphantly proved there in I652-they refer
to chs lmy), defeats in competing with American
machines at home, = as follows: They refer first to
fancy trial made at Springfield, Ohio, in the last
harvest, when the committee reported Gas quoted
by Seymour & Morgan) of my Reaper, that g it |
cuts the grain very well, good wide swath, (six
feet,) but 1t requires moro strength of team than
most Others, &c.; while, tested at the Netc York
tidl sometime afterward by the dinam0meter, chich
could not be made err, the draughti6f my Reaper
ascertained to be Is to 50 per cent lighter per