2d Session. No. 118. OZIAS HART. [To accompany bill H. R. No. 781.] FEBRUARY 23, 1855. Mr. A. STUART, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom were referred the petition and papers of Ozias Hart, of Seneca county, Ohio, ask leave to report: That said Hart was captain of a company composed of persons over 45 years of age, and others not subject to military duty, and formed part of Colonel John McMahan's regiment of New York militia. That he entered the service about the 15th of December, 1813; was present at the battle of Black Rock, where he was wounded; and that he remained in the service until about the 1st of March, 1814, and was honorably discharged. Captain Hart is satisfactorily shown to be a man of good character, and he swears to the facts set forth above. He is also sustained by David Griggs and William Wilcox, who were privates in another company in the same regiment, and who have received bounty-land warrants for their services. Hart is also sustained in full by Hiram Hart, who was in a position to know Captain Hart's services. This testimony, although such as fully to satisfy your committee, is not such as is required at the Pension Office, and they therefore ask leave to report. CYRUS H. McCORMICK. [To accompany bill H. R. No. 782.] FEBRUARY 23, 1855. Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Patents, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Patents, to whom was referred the petition of Cyrus H. McCormick, for the extension of letters patent granted to him on the 21st day of June, 1834, for improvement in the machine for reaping all kinds of small grain, make the following report: That at the 1st session of the 32d Congress, the said petition was reported upon by the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office of the Senate. Your committee have examined the said report and find that it substantially sets out the facts connected with said petition; they therefore refer to said report and adopt the same as their own. They would likewise report a bill for the benefit of said Cyrus H. McCormick, and recommend its passage. IN SENATE--March 30, 1852. The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of Cyrus H. McCormick, for the extension of letters patent granted to him on the 21st day of June, 1834, for improvement in the machine for reaping all kinds of small grain; and also the letters patent grant d the said Cyrus H. McCormick, dated the 31st day of January, 1845, for a new and useful improvement in reaping machines, ask leave to report: That by the originals presented to the committee, and now on file, it appears that three patents have been granted to the petitioner for im provements in reaping machines-the first dated January twenty-first, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four; the second dated January thirty first, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five; and the third dated October twenty-third, one thousand eight hundred and forty seven. That on the 19th day of January, 1848, he made due application to the board of extension, under the provisions of the eighteenth section of the act approved July 4, 1836, for the extension of his first patent That said board, on the 23d day of March, 1848, ordered that the petitioner go into proof of priority of invention, as between him and Obed Hussey, esq., who, about the same time, had appeared before the Commissioner of Patents for the purpose of filing an application for the extension of a patent for a reaping machine, granted to him on the 31st day of December, 1833; and who, it appears, did not file his application for the same in time to give the sixty days' notice required by law, and who, therefore, was compelled to abandon such application, and thereupon appeared before the board in opposition to the extension of the patent of the said Cyrus H. McCormick. 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 been 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. (See exhibit 17.) That on the 29th day of March, 1848, the said board decided against the extension of the petitioner's patent; reasons for such action on the part of the said board being set forth in exhibit marked D, being a letter of the Hon. Edmund Burke, late Commissioner of Patents, to Senators Douglas and Shields, under date of March 4, 1850, viz: "GENTLEMEN: Your letter of March 1st instant has been duly received; and in reply to the inquiries which it contains, I have the honor to state the grounds on which the board for the extension of patents under the 18th section of the act of July 4, 1836, reorganizing the Patent Office, declared to extend the patents of Obed Hussey and Cyrus H. McCormick, for reaping machines; they are as follows: "1st. In relation to the patent of Hussey, if my memory serves me, his patent expired some time within the latter part of December, 1847. During that month, and within some ten or twelve days before the expiration of his patent, he applied to me, as Commissioner of Patents, for an extension. I informed him that inasmuch as the act of Congress prescribed the mode in which patents should be extended; required a reasonable notice to be given to the public in sundry newspapers, published in those parts of the country most interested against such extension; and as the board had decided that reasonable' notice should be a publication of the application for extension three weeks prior to the day appointed for the hearing, there was not time to give the required notice in his case; and I advised Mr. Hussey not to make his applica tion, and thus lose the fee of $40 required in such cases-as he inevitably would, without the least prospect of succeeding in his applicationbut to petition Congress for an extension, which body had the power to grant it. This is all which I, as Commissioner of Patents, had to do with Mr. Hussey's application. "2d. As to the case of Mr. McCormick, during the same winter, (of 1847-48,) and after Mr. Hussey had applied to me for the extension of his patent, Mr. McCormick made application in due form, and in season, for the extension of his patent, which was granted in June, 1834, and consequently expired in June, 1848. Due notice was given; and on the day appointed for a hearing, Mr. Hussey appeared, to contest the extension of McCormick's patent. And on examination of the records of the Patent Office, and a comparison of the two patents, it appeared they both covered one or more features substantially identical in principle, but not the same precise combinations. And inasmuch as Mr. Hussey's patent bore date before McCormick's, the board decided that he was prima facie the inventor of the feature, or rather claim, which conflicted. But Mr. McCormick contended that he invented the part of the machine embraced in both patents, one or two years before Hussey obtained his patent, and was, in fact, the first and original inventor; and he prayed for a continuance of the hearing until he could take testimony upon that point to sustain his right. "His request was granted, and he was ordered to take testimony, with due notice to Mr. Hussey. "He complied with the orders of the board; but on an examination of the testimony on the next day of hearing, it was found to have been informally taken, and therefore ruled out. "Mr. McCormick subsequently made efforts to supply the defects, but never did satisfactorily to the board, and they declined extending his patent. Such is a brief history of the proceedings before the board of extension on McCormick's application. "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 important, as a labor-saving device, as the spinning-jenny and power-loom in manufactures. 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 existence 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 each year. Therefore, for want of an opportunity to test it, its perfection 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 informal) clearly proved. In the next place, it is a machine which was difficult to introduce into public use. It was imperfect in its operation |