Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1853-04-29

in proper working order. The public, howeye, ,
the progress which McCormick's machine made 40,
in favor of it, and seemed highly disappointed Ill., We
implement properly put together. Another trial
pressed tor: blcCormcks machine against Husseys
vince The public which The machine OF the two ~
second trial extended nine days, all kinds If ~
during exceedingly weather and proved bette,
the respective merits and defects OF The machines than
previous trial made in England committee Of in.tc
investigated The working OF The rearcrs, and decided
vor Of Mccurnirk's McCormIck's machine ia nj .
dfalstt f1r the horses nr cuts all kind Of corn in all
The rs and is mol liable 10 clog on the driving wheel mi
the lind is and sticky. Hussey's cioygcd
on The drivn. wheel, and would not cut damp corn
nor al all when mixed with weeds Bells machine has -
points in It's favor but has not succeeded cutting
we'll where there Is much undergass especially when Il
unLergrass is Thus, Bells and Husseys are borb A.
weather machines. In Scotland where corn is seldom
damp Bells machine will be vi more service than in T.
land where there many reasons why corn may b.
damn ur even wet There has been much talk as In =.
Their il is most advantageous for reaper deliver Il
corn Al the side in the sheaves, with McCormc
or in 4 stream continuous swathe as with Bells I
McCormicks egrrs man To deliver the sheares from \
side; Bells does not On the other hand, reaper sh0
cut ten or dozen acres day. and this quantity Would
qurc half dozen hands gather into sheaves Upon
whole, think McCormcks machine Of more practical J
Tor conumsng the labor OF harvest han any other yet
the rilifh public. Ii cut all kinds OF under A.,
circumstances that which Is much laid All reanl
machines open 10 :his objection, and of them
many more. II Is evident that reapIng machine brf,.
be entirely depended upon for harvest lmperst
should b. such would work whenever farmer va k
send his in field with scyJa' No other mach
but acCornick's has been found equal 10 ths task NJ
partial mid day trials for few hours which have beer
many parts ui the country, were not sufficient tests n
prolonged iral here has undoubtedly afforded oppo
mites for Judging Of the intrinsic merits and defects OF
rival reapers Than all other trials put together Thereisi
doubt, however that both Bells and Hussey's machil
would work well in oil ordinary eases in all Ordinary h.
vesls; aud calculated 10 economist the labors OF ar
seEy much Those who are opposed TO reaping machins
TOTO base icf condcmnaton- upon the fear of ta:
ia. l,bor; and secondly, because they cannot g.,
much laid The first objection has so little reason ia at
we ner not approach il. The second objection requires :.
lew remarks la b. overcome Although some acres If M
corn farm could lor b. cut by The reaper, Il does
follow thai The machine cond not be used with ecoN0m
lis proper place. Ii only 100 acres Of standing cofu I'll
farm with 200 OF laid Gil; by the REAPER att;
The usual cost by The sickle would there not be 2U sa
Dor eIpend If necessary, on the laid corn NOu!i
corn cost any 10 cnI il with scyhc or sickle, tea
The REAPER could standing corn III Is no masGl
amrr, 10 say ?Ui would be- saved ny the !e,i
n cntug dow 100 On this farm We paid IS &c
cre for reapng by sickle whilst whole held was cut d
nnd M in shravcs and finished oil well as the rei
orn ior Is Cd On 100 acres there would oe dllerenu
|