"Without the parts thus slowly accumulated and combined, and which have been so unhesitatingly appropriated by himself, _his own invention would have been as valueless as would be a shingle to him who could find no house-top on which to nail it_. The construction insisted on would compel the public to pay again, and pay extravagantly, for that which is already its own, alike by purchase and by long uninterrupted possession." The authorities cited make it clear the Hussey reaper was successful, from the start, but _the Patent Office did not seem to think that the machine of his opponent for honors was so_. The Commissioner in his decision refers to the testimony of William S. McCormick, who, at that time, was a partner of Cyrus McCormick as a manufacturer and seller of the McCormick reaper: [Sidenote: A Worthless Machine] "As a farmer I used the reaper without a seat, before a good one was invented, and am perfectly certain that it was so nearly worthless that a machine without one could not be sold at any price that would pay in competition with one having a raker's seat; this is my experience from my intimate connection with the business for many years." (Commissioner's Decision, January 28, 1859.) I further find: "In the criticism which has been necessarily made upon the invention of 1845, there has been no design to detract from the acknowledged value and usefulness of the machine, as constructed under the patent of 1847. It has had its brilliant successes in England and France, but it has also had its marked discomfitures when competing with other machines. Though enjoying a great and perhaps a still expanding popularity, it is by no means a universal favorite." The last words of the Commissioner are: "The application must therefore be rejected." There were no questions raised as to the invention of Mr. Hussey. [Sidenote: McCormick Had to Pay for Hussey Improvements] [Sidenote: Mr. Hussey Did Not Need the Improvements of Others]