The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-03
wAsH1neroN: rHvRspAY noaslse rEnnu 1858


mepS ~ my patent of but one of all thes1i
ter6nt parts of my machine-which would OIL
1 be attended by the bill a little more than tn
years to bring it to the date of the other two pa
tents, asproposed, and by which its patidity suou
not be Gfisted it would seem that my case befo
Congress could hardly be IN any manner affected 3
TIE claim made By Moore e Hascnt! And yet
has been said that this Moore & Hascail claim WIS
= to kill McCormick's bill that elf Moore & Has
calPs bill didn't pass, McCormick's should not
Now V, after what has been seen of Moore & Has
caii's bM and claim, the Senate shall think prope
to amend the bill 1fdnntottsly reported in my favor
Iby striking from, it (the too years. extension of
my patent Of 1845, schich tcould re,noue from it til
,ohole ground Of the ciansor against il BY The Moor
( = HascN party, (their first experiment havins
been after my fret patent,) 4 shall be satisfied
feeling that have sufficiently indicated the cor
Il rectness and propriety of my application.
II the principles ofmy machine icere not perfectet
Tor many gears after the fret experiments with it
for the reasons understood on all hands-the cues
ton is, does anybody else claim to have perfected
4 it before did 1t is said by Seymour & Morgan
that Bells machine, of Scotland, is substantially
the same machine, except the. cutting apparatus
lin other words, Moore & Hascails sickle D aohicl
| is not true. Bells is combination of shears te
cut, a reel to gather, and an endless revolving
| apron to discharge in swath, and propelled from
| the rear, Ghe latter not abandoned by them, as
falsely stated by S. & ny 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 sid discharge into sheaves and
the SIDE dransI 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, If
found too broad, can to that extent be discaimed,
according to law. t.l0 .aE4cs SFA
In regard to what Seymour & Morgan term the
"scotop SICKLE" and claim to have been irvented
by Moore Hascal in 1886, it is, in the first place,
not true that such sickle used by them in 1886
On the contrary, the testimony of Andreay Y
- Tioh tho
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 t. the present date been familiar with all said
machines operations taken in the Seymour &
Morgan infringement suit, goes to show 1912 as
the time of the first use of it, and whether they were
the hrst to simply vary the form of my invention
of the reversed cut on the straight eickIe by put
ting the sickle edge on an indeated smooth edged
blade long IN use by Hussey and others, is not ma
terial, not being patentabe, the Effect being the
same, itlltls proposedEby that means to vary, by.
lowering, the angle of the cutting sections neces-
sary with smooth edge. And vet this NAV be
one OF the amproueents'' 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 C inchin AZ inches in lengthy
from right line, in lis combination aoM The 1ock
angie OF the speGr-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 connection with the straight finger apifhom
the holding effect of my patented finger, as more
particularly seen presently in extracts from the
New York report.
Hit be intended to PROVE ssule snuention', of this
stimprorexnent' since the date of hspatent nd in
clude it in his Congress patent under that clause
ID the bill providing for such iinproveme nts then
there ia another practical exemplification of
Sign OF it to De applied to unpatentable Improve
naents. Under it, in that case the scollon sickle
notc much used, Gas Seymour and Morgan sav.l
10 intended to be patented az an. ssimproyement',
simply, without being subjected to the test of pa
tent law, and with no qualification in the bill as to
the sort of improvement, respectfully submit
whether under it more would be REQUIRED than ~
aprove an Improvement, which would of course be
done--though Mr.. Hassey has always considered
his blade better without than with teeth. If SO, all
persons using the sickle edge, reneat IN The
Htssey blade, Though not claimed sas his inyen-
ton, ssnow so much used ,, would be called on to
account to Moore and Hascall for what thew Iad
done! Itmay be in this way that "others'' are re.
ferred to by Hiram Moore, in the statements made
to the two Michigan witnesses as aforesaid. But
certainly the sickle being in my fret patent and
the reversed cut sickle in envy second merely
changing the zigzag smooth edge into serrated
one Tin that case having necessaritu reversed Of
fect) could not be patentabe ,,der erising lo,os.
The following extract from Judge Nelson's
charg on the trial of my suit uersus Seymour and
Morgan bears on this point, aahwel as the general
merits of that case:
.It is said by the learned counsel for the defence
that admitting all this to be true, conceding that
the plaintiff was the first person who succeeded in
getting practical place upon the machine for the
raker TO ride and 40 his work; admitting all this
to be true just as 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 with called as experts have expressed the
same opinion
CHOW, as bearing materially upon this question
of ingenuity and skill essential to bring out the
improvement claimed BY the plaintiff, i will be-
we'll to recur for moment to the history oftbe inn
proyement. Snebly trieditin 1888 and ,34 You. /!
gentlemen. remember his account of il: and he 4
said he had been engaged in experiment upon it 4
since lS25or 26, and had abandoned it. His con. 1
trivance was to bring the grain to the raker. go
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 reaping instrument.
and he did not succeed IN getting practical nos.
ton for the raker on the machine untilthe wear
tS46 or ~, and nobody had accomplished it before
although we now in the middle oft nineteenth
century. 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, ana the patentee is the only one who
has succeeded, notwithstanding it is to be
so very simple that any ordinary mechanic, lavino
his eye on the machine, could work out the res,,f3
without the necessity of any other ingenuity. a;
seems % me exceedingly difficult to reconcile
ton that it is desttuteof ingenuity and skill.eF
cept that belonging to any intelligent mecbani
and therefore not the subject of patent ?
Having now, as trust, unmasked this bantlnor
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. 80
They seem to suppose that if my REAPER is at
present shown to be better than those that infri,
my patents in the mnnufac ure of them m chance
for an extension of them would be good, and thew
proceed 10 give, and comment on, certain renorfs
OF trials, &c, IN manner and with a view to ID
vert the attention of members of Congress 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 EXIT
biton OF All Nations in fouor OF mine ,cas full
onhrnaed--in one of which trials more than one
hundred acres Of grain were cut And after pre-
sentng the points as decided in cutting an acre or
two, on stormy day at the close of the harvest of
1891, after had left England, with no chance to |
test the powers, of the, machines &c.--as the Sc
quel trinmphantly proved there in Is52-they refer
to This tmyl 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 as quoted I
by Seymour & Morgan) of my Reaper, that 6 it /
cuts the grain very we'll, good wide swath, (six /
feet,1 but 1t requires moro strength OF team than
most others,' z &c while, teated at the Nesc York
trial sometime after ward BY the dinamometer tchich
could not be made err, the draug of my Reaper
rfuio al 70 10 To iifrht