USA > Virginia > Rockbridge County > Rockbridge County > A history of Rockbridge County, Virginia > Part 38
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62
All of Cyrus's energies were now devoted to the manufacture and sale of reapers. The following advertisement inserted by him in the Staunton Spectator September 23, 1841, shows that his years of patient labor had not been without results :
The Undersigned now offers his PATENT REAPING MACIIINE to the public, upon terms that cannot be unsafe to them, having now satisfied himself that after several years' labor and attention in improving and completing the machine, he has triumphantly succeeded in effecting his object with as much perfection as the principle admits of, or is now de- sirable ; performing all that could be expected, viz : the cutting of all kinds of small grain, in almost all the various situations in which it may be found ; whether level or (moderately) hilly lands ; whether long or short, heavy or light, straight, tangled, or leaning, in the best possible manner, by a machine operated by horse power, with little friction or strain upon any of its parts, and without complication, and therefore not subject to get out of order, but strong and durable-that operates with great saving of labor and grain.
The same issue of The Spectator contains an interesting accotint of a field test at Bridgewater, Rockingham county, the county adjoining Augusta on the
320
A HISTORY OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
north, and the success of the experiment was testified to by a number of the leading citizens. One of the witnesses, Colonel Edward Smith, wrote an account of this test for the Southern Planter, the leading agricultural journal of the South, published at Richmond, and it appeared in the November issue, 1841. By 1842 the reaper had attracted the attention of farmers in all sections of the state, and numerous notices and advertisements appeared in the daily papers and agricultural journals.
Meanwhile McCormick's principal rival, Obed Hussey, began selling some of his machines in Virginia, and in the harvest of 1843 McCormick accepted a chal- lenge from Hussey for a competitive test near Richmond. This was the first of a series of contests which became a favorite method of promoting the sale of reapers and afforded rare amusement to the farmers. Field contests between different types of machines became especially popular in the West and were car- ried to great extremes. In some instances machines were drawn by four horses at a gallop through weeds, briars, brush, and saplings to see which could stand the most abuse. The following notice of the first competitive field test appeared in the Richmond Enquirer of June 27. 1843 :
Farmers, ATTEND!
From the following challenge, we may look out for some "rare fun"-not on the "battle" but on the "wheat" field We had expected some such trial of skill between the two master spirits of reaping, Messrs. McCormick and Hussey; and for the sake of the true farmer, as well as the amateur, we are glad that the sport is likely to come off so soon. The present contest, will, in all probability, decide the merits of one or the other of these labor saving machines; and we, therefore, invite a full attendance of the "Krights of the l'low-share." Much good always follows such a struggle for superiority, conducted. as it will be, in the most friendly spirit. It will be a beautiful thing, to see these two grand and powerful machines moving at a quick pace, and in their course, mowing down oceans of wheat. Should we, unfortunately, not be able to attend, we hope some of our farmer friends will send us a sketch.
An account of the contest with the report of the committee appears in the Inquirer, July 4, 1843 :
On Friday last, according to the challenge given and accepted, the contest came off between McCormick's and Hussey's Reaping Machines. The Champ de Mars was a wheat feld of Mr Ambrose Hutcheson's, near 4 miles from Richmond, under an equal sky and a burning sun. The spectators numbered from forty to fifty ; and principally consisted of farmer, who took a deep interest in the events of the day A committee of five were ap- painted Judges of the Lists and after the action was over, they made up the following report, which we have been requested to publish. We are also advised, that the two nachites will again be run together on the wheat fields of Tree Hill, the beautiful farm of Willsam HI. Roan, Ilg, where those who feel any curto ny on this interesting subject, will Have a fair of pertunity of testing and comparing the operations of the rival Machines. We are requested by the Proprieter to give a general invitation to farmers and others, to attend this experiment on Wednesday, (tomorrow).
MECHANICS MAGAZINE,
REGISTER OF INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS.
-
.. 1
-
--------
K
1
7
7 ) \ · · f plank, made fan to
1 1 Dung the grain when
1 4
- AI Ent rnhugh has been ( \ 16 1 r & raf. er more. The profte. 1 . fr ter are ton) pieces of the plat.
-
fro Imme, euren , about 1 } fret in front, anl oun er neste fort apart. On rach out.
1
puriste in he secured a broad
pris of wind, as at I, by ocres bolta, sa
.
F
at 1 1, passing through them and the pro.
11
4
321
ROCKBRIDGE INVENTIONS
REPORT
The undersigned were called upon, at the farm of Mr. A. Hutcheson, to witness the per- formance of the wheat reaping machines, invented by Cyrus H. McCormick and Obed Hussey, and to decide upon the merits of the same. We are unanimously of opinion, that both of them are valuable inventions, and richly merit the encouragement of the farming community. They both performed most admirably. The committee feel great reluctance in deciding between them. But, upon the whole, prefer McCormick's.
C. W. GOOCH, W. H. ROANE, JAMES PAE, CURTIS CARTER, FRANCIS STAPLES.
From 1839 to 1844 McCormick was engaged in the manufacture and sale of machines at his father's farm. The sales were at first slow and discouraging. The record of sales during the life of the original patent, which expired in 1848, is as follows: 1841, two; 1842, seven; 1843, twenty-nine; 1844, fifty ; 1845, fifty; 1846, 190; 1847, 450; making in the aggregate 778 machines, on which he received an average of $20.00 for his patent right.
In 1844 seven orders had come for "Virginia Reapers" from the West, two from Tennessee, and one each from Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ohio. These machines had to be hauled in wagons over the mountains to Scotts- ville in Albemarle County, then sent by canal to Richmond, then down the James to Norfolk, then shipped to New Orleans, then sent up the Mississippi by river boat to various points, from which they finally reached the farmers who had ordered them. Four of them arrived too late for the harvest of 1844 and two of them were not paid for. Cyrus finally decided to go West where the land was level and labor scarce. Setting out with $300.00 in his belt he went up through Pennsylvania to Western New York, then to Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio. On this trip he gave public exhibitions in the harvest field of the machines he had sold, and on his return by way of Cincinnati he made a contract for the manufacture of 150 machines in that city for the harvest of 1845. From Cincinnati he went to Brockport, New York, where he contracted for the manufacture of 200 machines, most of which were to be shipped to the West through the Erie Canal. He also arranged for the construc- tion of 100 machines at Chicago for the harvest of 1846, and for 100 more at points west of Chicago. This trip through the West revealed a new world to McCormick. He quickly realized that while the reaper was a luxury in Virginia, it was a necessity on the great plains of the West. After a brief visit to Virginia he returned to the West to superintend personally the construction of machines, first at Cincinnati, and then at Brockport, both of which were convenient points for the distribution of reapers. But with unerring judgment or intuition he
322
A HISTORY OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
soon concluded that Chicago was the strategic point for the creation of a great industry. So in 1848 he went to Chicago, then a village of 10,000 people, with medly streets, stretching along the Lake front. Here he formed a partnership with William B. Ogden, the first mayor of the town, who gave $25,000 for a Falt interest in the business. The next year he bought out Ogden's interest for $ 0,000 and sent for his brother Leander to come out and supervise the machine shops. In 1850 his other brother, William, was persuaded to come out to manage the financial side of the business. He gave each of them an interest in the citerprise. McCormick's choice of Chicago was most fortunate for him, and an event of great significance in the history of the West. The reaper industry and the city grew up together.
In 1848 Cyrus McCormick applied for an extension of his original patent, which was about to expire. The patent law at that time limited the term of a patent to fourteen years, but provided that under certain circumstances the inventor might make application for an extension of the patent for seven more years. The law required that when such application was made the Commissioner of l'atents should cause to be published in one or more of the newspapers of Washington and in such other paper or papers as he deemed proper, published in the section of the country interested most adversely against the issue of the patent, notice of such application and the time and place where it would be considered, and that any person might appear and show cause why the extension should not be granted. The Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of Patents constituted the board to hear the evidence and to decide for or against the extension. The patentee was required to submit under onth a statement of all receipts and expenditures so as to show fully the profits accruing to him from his invention. The law further provided that, "if, upon a licaring of the matter, it shall appear to full and entire satisfaction of said board, having due regard to the public interest therein, that it is just and proper that the term of the patent shall be extended hy reason of the patentee, without neglect or fault on his part, having failed to obtain in the use and sale of his invention a reasonable remuneration for the time, ingenuity, and expense betowed upon the same and introduction thereof into use, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to renew and extend the patent."
McCormick, acting in person and without the assistance of counsel, made application for an extension of his patent, and Hussey appeared to represent the (ponton thereto. Hussey's patent, it will be remembered, had been issued a few months prior to McCormick's, and it expired the latter part of December, 1847. Ten or twelve days before the expiration of Hussey's patent he applied te the Commi ioner of Patents for an extension, but as the rules of the Board required that notice of an application for extension should be published at
323
ROCKBRIDGE INVENTIONS
least three weeks prior to the hearing, his application was not received. Hussey, therefore, decided to make a fight against the extension of McCormick's patent, arguing that McCormick had been abundantly rewarded by sales of his patent rights and by extensive sales of his machines, that the extension of the McCor- mick patent would injure him, and that certain elements of the invention were to be found in earlier foreign publications. As McCormick claimed that several features of the Hussey machine had been invented and employed by him two years before the issuance of Hussey's patent, the Commissioner granted Mc- Cormick's request for a continuation of the liearing until he could take testimony in substantiation of his claims. McCormick secured affidavits from Dr. N. M. Hitt, John Steele, Jr., and from his mother and two brothers to the effect that his machine was invented and used in cutting wheat and oats in the harvest of 1831. The statement of his mother and brothers was as follows :
Walnut Grove, Feby. 17, 1848.
The undersigned, mother and brothers of Cyrus H. McCormick, do hereby state, each for himself, (and herself) that during the harvest of Eighteen Hundred and thirty-one said C. H. McCormick did have constructed and put into operation in cutting wheat on this farm, and oats on the farm of Mr. Jno. Steele, (a near neighbor), a Reaping Machine for which a patent was granted to him on the 21st day of June, 1834. When used in cutting the oats at Mr. Steele's as aforesaid this machine we believe was essentially the same in principle as when patented, as above. * *
* The undersigned do further state that said C. H. McCormick did make great efforts from time to time to introduce said machine into general use, but found many difficulties to contend with, which caused much delay in accomplishing the same. And they further state that they have no interest in the patent of said Reaping Machine.
WM. S. MCCORMICK, L. J. MCCORMICK, MARY MCCORMICK.
These affidavits were submitted to the Board at its hearing February 24, 1848. As this testimony was er parte, the Board ordered, "That the further hearing of this application be postponed to Wednesday, the twenty-ninth day of March next, and that the said McCormick be directed to furnish satisfactory testimony that the invention of his machine was prior to the invention of a similar machine by Obed Hussey, and that he be directed to give due notice to the said Ifussey of the time and place of taking said testimony."
McCormick then gave due notice to Hussey, and the latter appeared at Steele's Tavern, where the signers of the affidavits above referred to were cross- qustioned for two days by McCormick and Hussey, March 17 and 18, 1848. When the Board met again March 29th, they refused to grant the extension, and the following entry was made on the record :
March 29, 1848-Board met agreeable to adjournment. Present : James Buchanan, Secretary of State; Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents; and R. H. Gillet, Solicitor of
324
A HISTORY OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY. VIRGINIA
the Treasury, and having examined the evidence adduced in the case, decided that said patent ought not to be extended.
JAMES BUCHANAN, Secretary of State EDMUND BURKE Commissioner of Patents R. 11. GILLET, Solicitor of the Treasury.
Edmund Burke, the Commissioner of Patents, stated later to a committee of the Senate that the decision of the Board was not based on the merits of the case, but on the fact that the testimony had been "informally taken." The only redress open to McCormick was an appeal to Congress for an extension of his patent, and this he promptly made. Such appeals were frequently made at that time. But opposition to the extension of McCormick's patent was not confined to Hussey. Rival manufacturers of reapers and their paid attorneys urged the farmers of the country to oppose the extension of McCormick's patent, and Congress was flooded with petitions from farmers, protests of manufacturers, and even resolutions from State legislatures. McCormick's fight for the pro- tection of his patent rights was continued in Congress and in the United States courts for fifteen years. It became, in fact, a cause célèbre, and muay of the ablest lawyers of that period were engaged on one side or the other. Among them were Harding, Watson, Dickerson, Reverdy Johnson, Douglas, Seward, Staunton, and Lincoln. Toward the end of the fight in Congress the anti- McCormick lobby became so active that Senator Brown, of Mississippi, made the following protest on the floor of the Senate :
Why, Mr. President, if it were not for the parties out of doors-parties without in- ventive gemus-parties without the genius to invent a mouse trap or a fly killer, who are Itrating on this great invention of McCormick's speaking through their attorneys to the Senate, there would never have been an hour's delay in granting all that McCormick asks in the ball. I know, and state here, in the face of the American Senate and the world. that these men have beset me at every corner of the streets with their papers and their af lavits-men who have no claim to the car of the country-men who have rendered it To service, but who have investel their paltry dollars in the production of a manufacture which sprang from the mind of another man, and now, for their own gain, employ lawyers to draw cumming affidavits, to devise cunning schemes, and put on foot all sorts of machinery 10 defeat this application.
The wide-spread and persistent opposition to the extension of McCormick's patent is the most convincing evidence of the recognized value of the invention and of the fact that experience demonstrated it to be essential to the successful reaper.
Committees appointed by the Senate and the House, respectively, after ex- amining the matter, reported in favor of a special act authorizing the extension. The report of the Committee on Patents of the Senate, March 30, 1852, which waw afterwards adopted by the corresponding committee of the House, February 23, 1855, stated that Hussey having appeared before the Patent Board to oppose
325
ROCKBRIDGE INVENTIONS
McCormick's application for extension, an order had been made that McCormick should go into proof of priority of invention as between him and Obed Hussey." The report further stated :
That such order of the board was based upon the fact that the patent of the said Hussey bore date previous to the date of the petitioner's first patent, and thus, prima facie, said Hussey appeared to be the first inventor.
That testimony was thereupon taken, in compliance with the order of the board; and by the proof submitted on the part of said McCormick, it appeared conclusively that he invented his machine, and first practically and publicly tested its operation, in the harvest of 1831. That no proof on the part of the said Hussey appears to have geen submitted to the said board, as to the date of his said invention; but from the exhibits referred to your committee, it appears that his machine was first constructed and operated in 1833.
The report of the Senate committee also contained the following state- ment from Edmund Burke. Commissioner of Patents at the time that McCormick made his application for an extension :
I will now give my views with regard to the merits of the invention itself. I do not hesitate to say that it is one of very great merit. In agriculture, it is in my view as im- portant, as a labor-saving device. as the spinning-jenny and power-loom in manufacture. It is one of those great and valuable inventions which commence a new era in the progress of improvement, and whose beneficial influence is felt in all coming time; and, I do not hesitate to say, that the man whose genius produces a machine of so much value, should make a large fortune out of it. It is not possible for him to obtain during the whole exist- ence of the term of his patent, a tenth part of the value of the labor saved to the community by it in a single year. Therefore I was in favor of its extension.
There were, however, other reasons which induced me to favor its extension. One was the fact that the machine was one which could be used only a few weeks in cach year. Therefore, for want of an opportunity to test it, its perfections must be a work of time and tediousness. It is not like the steam-engine and other machines in common use, upon which improvements may be at any time tested. Therefore, the invention and perfection of a reaping machine must be a work of slow progress. And such was the case with McCormick's machine. He was many years experimenting upon it before he succeeded in making a machine that would operate, as the testimony before the board (although infor- mal) clearly proved. In the next place it is a machine which was difficult to introduce into public use. It was imperfect in its operation at first. It had to encounter the prejudice and the doubts and fears of agriculturists. And it appeared in proof, that Mr. McCormick was not able to sell but very few machines, until two or three years before the expiration of his first patent, which covered the leading original principles of his invention. Under that patent he never received anything like an adequate compensation for the really great inven- tion which he had produced. And I now repeat what I have always said, that his patent should be extended. With regard to the conflicts of rights and interest between him and Mr. Hussey, it is proper for me to remark, that when both of these patents were granted, the Patent Office made no examination upon the points of originality and priority of in- vention, but granted all patents applied for, as a matter of course. Therefore, it is no certain evidence that, hecause an alleged inventor procured a patent hefore his rival, he was the first and original inventor. It, in fact, was a circumstance of very little weight in its bearing upon the question of priority between the parties. Besides, the testimony of
326
A HISTORY OF ROCKIRIDGE COU". TY, VIRGINIA
Mr. McCormick presented to the board of extension clearly proved that he invented an ! put in operation his machine in 1831, two years before the date of Hu sey's pater ]
The Senate committee went fully into the question of the amount of profits derived from the patent and found that the whole amount was less than twenty-three thousand dollars. The report concluded with the following sen- tence : "It would seem that, having done something for himself, while doing much for the country, his claims to the extension of the first patent, under which he failed to realize adequate remnueration, in accordance with the provisions of the law, should not be less than if he had done nothing for either."
Not only was McCormick denied an extension of his original patent, but he was unable to secure an extension of his subsidiary patents of 1845 and 1847 for improvements on the machine. An extensive organization was formed throughout the country to resist the extension and to bring to hear pressure upon Congress for that purpose by petitions, by letters to their representatives, and by resolutions of State legislatures. Circular letters were issued representing that the effect of such extension of the monopoly would be to compel all manufacturers and farmers to pay tribute to McCormick. The applications were denied, it would appear, on grounds of alleged public policy, in reality as the result of political pressure. The Commissioners of Patents could not refrain. however, from paying their tribute to McCormick. Although denying the application for an extension of the patent of 1815. Joseph Ilolt said (1859) of the appli- cant : "He has been so fortunate as to link his name indisoluble with a machine which, unless outstripped in the race of progress, may endure as a proud memorial, so long as the ripening grain shall wave over the boundless plains of the West, or the songs of the reaper shall be heard in its harvest fields." In denving the application for the extension of the patent of 1847. D. P. Holloway, Commissioner of Patents, paid the following tribute to McCormick (October 20, 1861) : "Cyrus Hall McCormick is an inventor, whose fame. while he is yet living, has spread throughout the world His genius has done honor to his own country, and has been the admiration of foreign nations, and he will live in the grateful recollection of mankind as long as the reaping ma- chine is employed in gathering the harvest."
In the snit of McCormick v. Seymour, in the United States Cirenit Court for the Northern District of New York, involving the question of validity and infringment of the McCormick patent of 1845, the defendants, in order in di parage McCormick's invention, introduced a large amount of evidence, in- cluding the Hussey patent and the testimony of Hussey, other devices before experimented with in this country, and evidence concerning a machine alleged in have been invented by Patrick Bell, described in London's Encyclopedia, published in London in 1831, and there represented to have been built and experimented
327
ROCKBRIDGE INVENTIONS
with in 1828 and 1829. The charge to the jury in this case was delivered by Justice Nelson, of the United States Supreme Court. After speaking of the early Bell machine as an experiment which had not been successful, Justice Nelson said (3 Blatch. 216) :
In point of fact, therefore, it would seem, for aught that appears from the testimony in this case, that notwithstanding there have been seven attempts, and six of those American, to construct a successful reaping machine, but two out of the seven have ultimately become beneficial and useful instruments for the purposes for which they were constructed- that is, the machine of Hussey and the machine of McCormick. It appears, from the evidence in the case, that Hussey and McCormick turned their attention to the construction of a reaping machine very nearly at the same period-McCormick two or three years the earlier. They have persevered from that time down to the present, and they have each of them, it is conceded, brought out a successful reaping machine. All the others failed, failed early, gave up the pursuit, and abandoned their machines.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.