Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1880-07-05
DAVIS vs.. SINGER.

= n
N tne issue OF June 9th. the paid adver,;se
nen. VI the Singer Co., signed Shuttle Car
containing an account of a contest be
eeh me Davis and Singer machines a
oores Mills, New Brunswick. This ",
uio not al nrst regard of sufficient importanc,
70 ca,i Tor reply. and We should treat IL will
.he silent contempt il deserves were the mer
IT'S OF the Davis as we'll known in the sur
FOUNDING towns as in Augusta, Hallowell ant
uardiner, where they have been most through
tested and universally appreciated. Pos
sioly the Singer Company would have mad,
Deiter impression on the public if the,
couid nave pointed to a contest in the State
Vi Maine or eren IN the United States where
the Singer had successfully competed with
the DAVIS 1t seems they have found an OBJ.
scure town IN New Brunswick, and secured
TWO singer sympathizers on committee o,
three, and publish the result as a great fri.
umph. Parties >who were present character.
lie the whole performance as a farce. and
state that Shuttle Carriers" accounts of the
trial are grossly incorrect. We give state
ments Of eye witnesses below.
Evidently the Singer Company have for
gotten a trial nearer home than Moore's Mills.
New brunswick. We refer to the Fair al
headneld last fall. where the Singer, New
home and Davis competed for superiority.
The Davis received the first arard and the
singer the third, and at subsequent Fairs in
this county no Singer agent could be prevail
ed upon to work his machine with the Davis
even though his entrance fee were paid for
him.
The following letters were published in
the st. Croix Courier.
To the Editor of the 81. Croir Courizr:
DEAR SIR: Having read in the last issue
OF your paper Shuttle Carriers account of
the sewing machine contest held at Moore's
Mills on the lst inst, and proving it from
actual observation to be incorrect in MANY
particulars. we desire to acquaint the public
with the following facts over our own sigma
lures
LIST. As regards simplicity, this testproved
a mere farce, for whilst the Davis machine
was taken wholly apart the examination of
the Singer consisted alone in taking off the
face plates, Notwithstanding Mr.. Gardiner
protested against such a superficial examina-
ton.
2nd. As regards work, it was the opinion
Of nine-tenths of the spectators present
they numbered about forty), that the Davis
Machine excelled in each and every line of
work done, and Mr.. Gardeners repeated
challenges 20 Mr.. Olnstead to duplicate the
work of the Davis, upon his, the Singer ma
chine, was Invariably answered with some such
remark as ''YOu do your own work and we
will do ours" whilst the working of the ma
chine attachments, in which the Davis IS par
ticularly rich, was completely ignored by two
of the Judges, Messrs. Crangle 4 Ray, not
outstanding the protest of the third Judge,
Mr.. Chick.
3rd. Amongst the ladies who witnessed
the contest. there was not to be found Sing
er champion, although some of them own
Singer machines, and even Mrs. Connick,
the hostess, to whom the winner was to pre-
sent sewing machine, of her choice decided
publicly in favor of the defeated Davis
machine, Signed
Matthew Hannah, B. L. Moore,
Miss Dibblee, James Dick
VIM. Douglas. VIM. McGibboE,
Mrs. G. W. Peakes, n L. Hannah
ID. B. Myshall, NJ. D., Percy Stevenson,
w. II. Maxwell, Sarah Douglas,
Mrs. Hiram Maxwell, VIM Gillespie.
Miss Moore.
Having examined the Davis Sewing
Machine consider it superior to any other
sewing machine in the market, and should
have taken the prize at the late contest with
the Singer at Moore's Mills.
John A. Moore.
Moore's Mills. April 10, 1880.
To the Editor of the Courier:
Dear Sir :-Your paper of the sth contains
communication signed Shuttle Carrier
and purporting to have been written at
Moore's Mills. When the Singer party re-
pairs to Midtown aud writes such an erroni-
Gus communication as "Shuttle Carriers"
and tries to foist it upon the public as the
production of resident of MOOre's Mills,
| fear they must look elsewhere for forgive
ness: and, Mr. Editor, to speak seriously,
Fair PLAY" can pr0re that 'Shuttle
Carriers" production was the result of a
meeting Of the Niiitown Singer agents.
Now few words as to the contest itself,
and | may add that my opinion comedies
with that of the ma jority of witnesses. That
it proved to be mere farce from beginning to
end was plain to the most casual observer,
or at least so far as concerned the Singer
machine. The examination of the Davis was
compiete and thorough in all its details,
while that of the Singer was shdHow, super
fc,ai and hastily performed, but, as Messrs.
Crangle and Ray stated in Mrs. Connicks
parlor before the contest began that they had
oreyhauied both machines at their respeefire
houses. that part of the contest was undoubt-
we have the unusual spectacle of judge and
referee coming to a contest with their minds
made up beforehand.
Judging from the opinion of the ladies
present. expressed both then and since, the
Davis machine erceHed in erery rartety Of
ro,k, many of which Mr.. Olmstead, who
operated the Singer, would not
attempt to duplicate. excusing him.
self upon the ground that che
had left his attachments at home"
In conclusion will state that before the