Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1901-06-21
A CARD.

j
| the StauntOn SPECTATOR by Mr. q. Z
Collyer, representing the Mccormick
! Harvester Co., IN which he says the
cicular sent out by the Deerins Har-
vester Co. in regard to field contest at
| Monroe, N. c., was rubbish and not a
| word of truth in it. We do not wish
| to cast any reflection on Mr.. Collyer,
as we suppose he was instructed by the
McCormick'S Gen. Agt. at Charlotte,
N. g., but we do say the telegram was
absolutely false, as there was no field
contest at Monroe. N. G. Below we
give copy OF the circular mentioned,
and let the readers judge for Them
selves. DEERING HARVESTER Co.
BY w. ID. Long, Gen. Agt.
A False Report.
The Mccormick representatives
grossly misrepresented facts when they
claimed they had defeated the Deering
Binder in field contest at Monroe,
Tuesday, the 4th, for we have had no
contest this week with them. Tie facts
are as follows: We met at Monroe,
Tuesday, the 4th. to engage in a field
trial with the Mccormick Binder, and,
after arriving on the ground, MIR. r.
b. Fox, general agent for Mccormick,
lcl uScU W ICCOSulLc Jul IOpI OoOutdUltC,
7. I. Showalter, and told him he was
not our legal representative and he
would not go into the contest. Mr.
Showalter was sent there by us with
full authority to act. He therefore is
sued challenge to the Mccormick
people, and, embodied in the challenge,
each of us were to select one judge and
they to select the third; they declined
ho oh nd ~ OF. box
would not agree to there being judges
appointed, and they would only agree
to let Mr.. l. F. Plyler, whom they had
brought there to sell binder to, to de |
eide the matter. Any man with com
agree to such conditions, and therefore |
no contest took place. Mr.. Plyler
stated beforehand if the conditions
were any way equal, he would give the
Mccormick preference, as he was a
the Heath-Lee Hardware Co. AS there
was large crowd present who wanted
to see our machine in operation, our
Mr.. ShOwalter gave an exhibition, and
also permitted Mr.. Plyler to run the
few rounds to see how he
liked it. He stated he could see no
difference in the two and gave us a
certificate, which We give you here
below.
MesSrs. Shannon s. Co.
Gentlemen-After seeing the Nc
COrmick and Deering machines work,
| must say that if l wished to buy
two machines, or needed two machines
would certainly buy one Deering
and one Mccormick.
(SignedD I. F. PLYLER.
Monroe, N. g., June 4th, 1901.
Now these are the plain facts, and
not man present will state other.
wise, except the Mccormick represent
tatives, who never acknowledge de-
feat, and who would rather misrepre-
sent, ever if the truth would serve
their purpose best.
DEERING HARVESTER Co.
By w. d. Long, Gen. Agt.
THE LETTER
Fairfield, VA, Oct. 10, 1900
Deering Harvester Co.,
Richmond, Va.
Gentlemen-I owe you an apology
for not replying to your letter received
some time since, reg arding Mr.. Spen-
ICI OpcIdGluS yOuI UluuoF Ou my
farm. l was sick at the time your COM
munication was received, is why l fail
ed to give it my attention.
Mr.. Spencer came to my farm and
asked permission to exhibit an Ideal
Deering Harvester. which l cheerfully
granted. He pulled his machine into
my wheat field and cut grain from p.
%. until 6 O'Clock, operating his binder
With two horses, while | was operating
4 Mccormick binder drawn by four
horses, which seemed to be working as
1ard as Mr.. Spencer's two horses. My
binder had cut four crops. We were
in the same field, but of course Il
On different lands, though we thought
the grade about the same. l had never
given much time to examining the
Deering machine, in this case felt
required me to give Mr..
Spencer and his machine my attention.
was surprised to see the difference in
iraft, and l also believe it to be an
easier operated machine. Until this
summer | did not know of single
Oeering Harvester in my neighbor
mood, but Mr.. Spencer made similar
Jest Oh adjoining farms, and out of the
our tests made be left binders sold.
Very truly yours,
T. VIM q HOUSTON