New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-12-04

10 mature their Inventions
The frst of these Gbj.tions exhibited here, "a 20
s.p,sd in the form Of picture sni esciprpn Of
ResIer got up by he Rev. Pf.rl,k b 2, cln,aine
IN LOnoohs Epcy elopsjis, published n I'll f,s
will remember the sufhors remsrk in bsrsdins t1i'
supposed invention, namely, that there VS. 3 ye' 10
Mechanical Reaper Tnless this one should prove
successful. Mr.. Bells projected machine certE1ly
did rot contain the new feature % III CoEmick :
The Diyider consisting Of ,he sharpenet bslm, TIE
outside DO and the inside dividing iron cooperating
with the rel, was not in Bells machine. For, -
Won con see Bel had disier at a'l-brt only the
OHirite blsde Of the series Of shebaiss which con-
.ttu-ed BIZ cutting in-ifUnienL Tee R-el N Bell
machine dio nothing towards dividing the sya.b from
he grain TO be eit st4r6i0g. Indeed, there vas
such thing as dividing 20 be done, and the fdnctoC of
the Reel Of Bell vss merely 20 ioclre The heals o.
tie stalks backwards, 50 that they M, hi fl upon
revolving endless apron, which deposited t1en upon
The ground. No lifting up, disentaDgliDg % parting
OF the grain was attempted. Bat i L Lot necessary
to or, : this inquiry further TIE d-fenants
sel EXPRESSLY dclsim the idea n II Bel had DivIer
like the plaintiffs They insist however that Bells
reel standard is the the reel standard OF the
plaintiff Ii il suHieiect answer TIA the reel in
Bells machine has no. the sane Office TO perform
MCoImicks, and, therefore that rs )sltOn in re-
lsion TO the different parts Of the machine il
tally different As the reel had such relative po-
.top and duties So Of course the reel standard hsd
none aud could have meme. Bu, Bell project
failure His ma bine politician Reaper rather
than farmers Reaper. II deposited is sEash on
g
was theoretical Reaper adopted 10 the study of the
phlosopber-nOt to the harvest field. Even the
" dew Of the morning, rs lis learned inventor coz
fessos, arrested i. in is progress.
The second Of the attempted inventions offered by
tie defendants il Scbnebey's. Ii Is described IN
letters patent, which from their birth without
nfe-a voice and boihing else. Somebody's pro-
itcied machine was. however, an advance beyond
BeIls II had Drtder. Tnst d.vider was hori-
zouisl wecge four inches wide, but il placed on
The level Of the shears which constituted the eating
instrument 1t cid lot lift up the grain, nor olsen
tapele IT, uOr part IT, turn one portion inward and
aIotheT outward. OF course, il LETT the ssaks en-
tar.td broke them, and crushed them upon the
ground Somebody's Reel lent no aid 10 the dividing
process and had no adaptation To such purpose,
ether in is position or IN 's form OF construction
L. its pos.tiOn il did not overlap the grain a. the
point OF division and instead OF having Hat arms,
Ike NJ CoImicks reel, il vas barrel with alternate
stAyCs removed. Su n reel, Instead o: aiding 20
separste the grain would necessarily beat IL down
il parsed through. Only one or two machines were
ever made upon tbs plan. and Of these not ooe re-
mains in operation, its inventor informs US in his
deposition. What caused II 10 lie Want of favor
f,om capital az we are Informed on the same author
itv Tie inventor thought capital capncious He
offered her steaInoD CINE, bu; she ri ctsi il with
dsdain. Capital was prtjuolced, not against Schneb-
hy's machines but against Schnebsy. lie invented I
printing press, and laid u az the feet OF capital.
CAPITAL looked on the printing press, and then on
Scinebley and suffered the invention 10 go the way
of all mechanical fe,h.
The defe1dmts have next brought Wood
wards proiscted machine before u.s. Like Schneb-
l,.y's i had an altompt a, a Divider-a horizontal
gec ee four ard half inches wide, with vertical
piece about an inch thick, set upon the wedge. But
The point of this oivider set on hinge, and ~
was az Unstable to The right or to the left Inc object
OF this adinstabi,i,y was 10 enlarge diminish the
swath. For aught know, Il might have been useful
Ii il was so, il was an invepiion but even then II
vas not the defendants Dtr1dcr a 1915. Except 10
is aoiusiibiliiy il was NJ COrmicks Drlf,T Of 1894,
and Lo,bitg more. This machine also proved 4
failure WHY The inventor was visionary. he
attached car behind the Reaper, with plot, helm
and rudGer To steer the machine around the harvest;
field How unfortunate was it for tho inventor and
for his country that the machine was not offered az
the Cry sial Palace III London, as a competitor for
some one Of the prizes offered for new things. am
speaking from the place heretofore occupied by the
counsel for the defendants during this Trial, aad
ind here this plate, on which is printed Mariners
C,muass 30 not know, but Thick this must be a
part of the wreck OF Woodwards Marine Reaper.
We know what has become OF the inventor. lie has
gone TO California We know also the fate Of his In
y.ntiop. Invent down in the haryestfeld leaving
rot ripple on the surface, like ship that hath
Gone down a ses
when heaven was ell tranquility
But. to be serous. IN Woodward's patent which
bears date September &c. s4J eight months after the
plaintiff patent, Reel is at all de sen )ed or repre-
sebied.
Again the vertical board ia not found in the patent
and Is plscej upon the machine now from tue mem
ory Of Mr.. Lawrence, who drew tn specific alton.
The pstert iinpeaches his memory ii not his veracity.
Once more The vertical board did not extend to the
end Of u horizontal wedge, as indeed 1t could not,
because the end Of that wedge set upon hinge.
The divider therefore, not only altogether differ
ent from " Cormick improved Dirsdsf ot lsiJ, but
was really inferior in effect to the D'eife' Ia NJ
Cormicks patent Of 1851
The C6fendants next offer Reaper invented by
Jonathan Reed The inventor appears here, hrst, by
letters patent and secondly, in person as witness
In pcrson he claims he had vertical board sc, upon
horizontal beam, somewhat like Nood"ards ;, and
even ike Mccormick IL his patent OF i55t' ba,p
even 10 that il is conceded that he had no such
adjustment of the Reel, and no such made dividing
iron and no such outside bow as are found IN NJ
Cofmick patent oil I'D In opPosIlol, honeNe',
TO this claim, stands Reeds patent, which shows
Resper without sny DfrtfCr az all The deendauts
counsel have insisted that II appeared rom Reeds
testimony that the outside projection OF the beam
on which the vertical board rested, had an upward
inclination corresponding in principle OF construction
10 the Outside bow in NJ Cormicks patent OF lel1i
hut the contrary appears from bis EXAMINATION
He saw he thinks the point Of the beam was little
lower II anything. Reed Is an honest, ard very
old man. lie has survived his invention many years:
While his memory Is impaired, he has firmly roasted
the ingenious Efforts Of counsel to swerye hn IRON
the truth.
have dwelt at length and emphatcally upon the
failure e these several machines. but not without
purpose nor without reason. The purpose was 10
show you that each OF them wa merely experimental,
ard " as never perfected and brought into use The
reason was that in Judgment Of Law, thing which
ha. been only conceived devised aud pree;lced ex-
rerime ntany, without being perfected AID brought
INTO successful use has been invented, and 50
cannot stand il the way OF q subsequent Invention.
TIE machine which was next presented by TIE
leaned counsel was one Of different class. IL Is
the one which was invented by Obed Hussey, in
1-33 IL il successful machine, and l. TO be found
in quite general You sect here before YOU IL has
DO dsrsdeT al ALL reel and OF course 10 reel stan
dard Tie inventor has been examined as witness,
and he expressly tells that he octed the reel A.
Lsrs eEiiseiy Inappropriate h nsehue and ihsrsfs
Lst.-ss.
one ether m.ehn. hss been introduced By the dsteaisnt.