William S. McCormick and Leander J. McCormick, brothers of C. H. McCormick, also testified to the making of a machine in 1831.
Mary McCormick, mother of C. H. McCormick, agreed in general with the testimony of her sons,—did not doubt but it was correct, "it appears familiar to me," but testified to nothing in particular.
Testimony
John Steele, Jr., was tavernkeeper at "Steele's Tavern," testified as to the year being 1831 or 1832. In his amended testimony, admitted that C. H. McCormick wrote the paper describing the machine for him to testify to; recollects little else about the machine than the straight sickle edge.
Eliza H. Steele refused to testify without first seeing a certificate previously signed by her; admitted that C. H. McCormick wrote it for her to sign; her testimony as to the year depended on the building of a certain house, on which the workmen put 1831.
John McCown—was a blacksmith—testified that he made the "straight sickle blade," and that it was "a long, straight sickle" blade.
This was most singular testimony to found a claim of priority of invention on, and by which to invalidate another man's patent. There was discrepancy in the evidence as to the year of the invention; also whether the machine was intended for one or two horses; how the "fingers" were arranged, and whether of wood or iron, above or below, the "straight sickle blade." Two of the brothers—one at least who helped to make, if not also to invent this machine—testified that the plan or arrangement of the machine here sworn to, was changed in 1840, 1841, 1842, or 1843, they did not know which; from 9 to 12 years afterwards!
John McCown swears positively that he helped to build the machine, so far at least as to forge "a long, straight sickle;" but neither he, or a single one of the seven sworn witnesses, "ladies and gentlemen," testify that the machine ever worked a single hour, or cut as much grain of any kind as would make a single sheaf![1]
[1] The reading of this testimony strongly reminds us of an anecdote related at the hustings in Virginia by that talented but eccentric character, John Randolph, of Roanoake, in a political canvass with an opponent, who promised what he would do for his constituents, if elected. Randolph told him he was like one of his overseers, a plausible fellow, but on whom little reliance was to be placed—and who, desiring to show what fine crops he had raised, exhibited a better tally board than the crop could justify. "I told him," said Randolph, "this is very good tally, John, but where's the corn? and I tell the gentleman, I don't want to see his tally, but the corn—the evidence of what he ever did to entitle him to a seat in Congress." The effect was electric, and the hustings rang with plaudits. Now we would say to C. H. McCormick, this is very good tally, John, but where's the Corn? The evidence that the machine ever cut a single acre of grain.
"John Smith"