|
|
|
Information from Saw & Toothed Cotton Ginning Developments By Charles A Bennett 1960 THE TOOTHED GIN INVENTIONS OF ELI WHITNEY AND H ODGEN HOLMES WITH BRIEF REVIEWS AND COMMENTS. By Charles A. Bennett ( Former Principal Engineer at the Stoneville, MS Cotton Ginning Research Laboratory)All staple lengths of cotton may be ginned on roller type cotton gins. When the Government of the United States of America came into being at the end of the American Revolution, the roller gins were the only kind available and were not only rather crude but low in capacity. Necessity, generally referred to as the mother of invention, led to the devising of toothed types of gin stands that could more rapidly and efficiently gin out the "bread-and-butter" short-staple upland cottons that promised so much to the agriculture of the Western Hemisphere. Vague ideas for toothed ginning are reported to have been extant in 1787, before the United States Patent Office was formed. At that time, Caveats of Invention, having a duration of 5 years privilege for the inventor, were issued by the War Office. In numerous instances, ideas of inventors have been ahead of their time because materials or manufacturing facilities were not available for their effectuation. Even when excellent facilities of shops, tools, and materials are at hand, as has been the case since the establishment of the Cotton Ginning Research Laboratories in 1930 by the United States Department of Agriculture, it is nevertheless somewhat time-consuming and tedious to develop practical machines for seemingly simple ideas. Years may pass rapidly under such circumstances before satisfactory results are achieved. It is not improbable that periodic waves of inventive ideas impinge simultaneously upon several persons who are broadly separated by localities, training, vocations, and facilities. Such probably was the case in the birth of toothed cotton gin stands, affording two valuable inventions by Holmes and Whitney that were virtually simultaneous. The general form of these two inventions, which are discussed later in more detail are shown in Figures 23 and 24. Figure 23a.
Line drawing of Eli Whitney's 1794 patent spike gin, as made by Prof. D. A. Tompkins, 1890. This model is at Clemson College, South Carolina.
Figure 23b.
Line drawing of Eli Whitney's 1794 patent spike gin, as made by Prof. D. A. Tompkins, 1890. This model was portable.
Figure 24.
Line drawings of H Odgen Homes' 1796 patent saw gin. This working unit, as constructed by Prof. Tompkins is also at Clemson College, S. C. The plain cotton gin of the present time, (1960) for comparison to the foregoing toothed gins, is depicted in Figure 25.
Figure 25.
U.S.D.A. Cotton Ginning Research Laboratories' cross-section of today's plain gin, (as portrayed in the model by Messrs. McWhirter, Martin and Baggette at Stoneville, Miss.). It is convincingly claimed on the one hand, that ideas for saw toothed cotton ginning began in 1787 with work at the Kinkaid Plantation in Craven (now Fairfield) County, S. C. , by Henry Ogden Holmes, now generally known as H. Ogden or Hodgen Holmes, who obtained a "Caveat" thereon in 1789. On the other hand, beginning with Mrs. Nathaniel Greene's problems in cotton at her Mulberry Grove Plantation in the area of Savannah, Ga., it is recorded that she urged Eli Whitney to work out a cotton gin, and that he developed the needle-tooth or spike-toothed cotton gin stand on her plantation. In an effort to find out "who was who" and what they actually did at the inception of these toothed gin ideas, Professor D.A. Tompkins followed many historical trails during his researches between 1880 and 1900. Tompkins was a trained engineer and writer, residing at Charlotte, N. C.; and was also renowned for his work as Instructor of Textiles at Clemson College, S. C. He fortunately was in the locale where Holmes and Whitney had been, and we are greatly indebted to him for his efforts and contributions. Professor Tompkins was fair and impartial. His investigations exploded numerous weird myths and wild stories about Whitney and Holmes that had been prevalent. He clearly outlined the salient features and respective differences of each invention. At Clemson College, where they may be seen today, he constructed full sized working models of the Whitney and Holmes gin stands and faithfully reproduced their details from authentic sources. This author is indebted to Thomas Ancrum, Camden, S. C., for a manuscript containing interesting comments about Hodgen Holmes, some of whose descendants (Ruffs, Leitners, and others) are understood to reside in South Carolina at the present time. From this manuscript by Claude C. Leitner (2), it appears that Capt. James Kinkaid of New York City and Charleston, S. C. , was both a cotton planter and a ship owner. His advocacy to move the State Capitol to Columbia is said to have incurred the displeasures of Charleston residents to such an extent that his friends and employees (among them Hodgen Holmes) were unwelcome there. It is an established fact that Holmes was a general mechanic and farm leader for Kinkaid at the grist mill and plantation in Craven County; and it is claimed that with Kinkaids help, Holmes obtained his Caveat of Invention from the War Office under date of March 14, 1789, covering a sawtoothed type of cotton gin. The Caveat for 5 years thus expired on March 14, 1794 -- the date that a patent was granted to Eli Whitney for his spike or needle-toothed gin, although Whitney's application had been filed in 1793. Holmes descendants further claim that Holmes' Caveat was displayed in 1881 at the Cotton States Exposition at New Orleans and later at the Charleston Public Library until it disappeared. The first power-driven saw-toothed gin was demonstrated in 1795, and this brought forth a law suit by Whitney against one Edward Lyons. Eli Whitney was a Yale graduate in Law. Hodgen Holmes evidently had little formal education. Each man appears to have been a genius in his own way, a skilled designer, and a clear thinker. The Whitney original patent sketches and descriptions not only show the needle or spike tooth exclusively, but also indicate that the ginning unit was intermittent in its action and required dumping the seed roll at intervals. The difficulties attendant to making uniform needle teeth and properly securing them upon the surface of the cylinder were such that they would deter many farm mechanics from attempting to fabricate the original Whitney cotton gin. These may be noted in Figure 24. Holmes' cotton gin was down-to-earth and practical,- using circular saws and flat ribs that farm mechanics could produce and the unit was continuous in action. Basically, it continues to be the cotton gin stand now in use. An inspection of the two drawings by Prof. Tompkins indicates how widely the two gins differ in their principal elements. Another interesting illustration of the Whitney needle -tooth gin is shown in Figure 26, which was published in "The Growth of Industrial Art," (4), arranged, and compiled under the supervision of Hon. Benjamin Butter worth, Commissioner of Patents. It was reproduced and printed in pursuance of an Act of Congress, March 3, 1886, and Acts supplementary thereto.
Figure 26.
As quoted from the reference - U.S. Patent Saw Gin - A. D. 1794." - - Text further says, "Until the invention of Whitney the separation of the fiber from the seed was entirely performed by hand........... Although no saws are shown in the official picture, it maybe said in fairness to Whitney that his needle teeth were probably as successful as were those of gin saws in handling long-staple cottons, and it is known that Whitney turned to the use of saws in his last models. During research trips to the Southeastern states in 1940 - 41, old residents told the author that needle-toothed gins, made by a Mr. Scattergood, had ginned Sea-Island cotton in their communities, with excellent results. One of the few authentic Whitney gin models is in the U. S. National Museum at Washington, D. C. It was made by Eli Whitney prior to 1800, and was deposited in the Museum by Eli Whitney, Jr., in 1884. In it are 15 rows of ginning teeth, ten rows being needle teeth, and five being saw discs. The center distance of the rows were 112-inch, between .which there were two curved wires, or a total of 28 wires, that formed the front breast. The actual metal grates or ribs and rib rail were assembled almost centrally above the rows of teeth. Outside diameters of the saws and needle-teeth tip circles approximated 3-1/2 inches, according to the author's notes, and the overall width of both the saw and brush cylinders measured 8 inches. Figure 27, made from a combination of the author's sketch and the photograph of the model that was generously afforded us by the Textile Curator of the Smithsonian Institution, may make the design of the Whitney teeth more easily understood.
Figure 27
Sketch and information regarding the peculiar shape of the Whitney wire teeth.
Photo of the Eli Whitney Model with lid removed, as now on display in the U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. At the Cotton Ginning Research Laboratory (Stoneville, Miss.) the Whitney tooth forms of the first five rows in his model, - shown in Figure 27, were duplicated on gin saw discs of 10-inch diameter. These teeth gave good results in ginning but were lower in ginning capacity than the conventional saw teeth. For ready reference, Table I gives comparisons of the major elements of the Whitney and Holmes' gins, as constructed about the year 1800. These were not models but actual gins that worked on the plantations. TABLE I.
The certified copies of Whitney's original patent as published by Tompkins from the Federal Court Records in Savannah, Ga., and his restored patent drawing, are given for reference in the Appendix. Unfortunately, the original patent papers and models at Washington, D. C. were destroyed in the II. S. Patent Office fire of December 15, 1836. Holmes' patent was not restored, but a long-hand restoration for Whitney was made with some errors and differences between it and the Savannah documents. Tompkins summarized the whole matter relative to the Holmes and Whitney invention in what we consider to be a just and brief manner, as follows; The real facts about the cotton gin are: 1. Eli Whitney, of Mass., a graduate of Yale College, invented a cotton gin, consisting of spikes driven in a wooden cylinder, and having a slotted bar through which these spiked teeth passed, and having a brush to clear the spikes. He obtained a patent March 14, 1794, signed by George Washington, President, Edmund Randolph, Secretary of State, and Wm. Bradford, Attorney General. 2. Henry Odgen Holmes, of Georgia, a resourceful and practical mechanic, invented an improved gin, using circular saws properly spaced, passing through spaces between ribs. For this invention he obtained a patent May 12, 1796, signed by George Washington, President, Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State, and Chas. Lee, Attorney General. 3. Whitney's invention, consisting of a wooden cylinder, carrying annular rows of wire spikes, with a slotted bar and clearing brush was fundamental. 4. The practical application of the fundamental idea was Holmes' invention of the saw gin, which consisted of a mandrel or shaft carrying collars separating circular saws which pass through narrow spaces between ribs. 5. Whitney went South without money, business experience or mechanical training. He received from the Southern States the following amounts: From South Carolina......................... ..... $50,000 From North Carolina (at least).................. $30,000 From Tennessee (about)......................... $10,000 Royalties from Southern States (about) ... $90,000 6. In Georgia., his firm (Miller & Whitney) attempted to monopolize the ginning business. This brought on long and vexatious litigation, and the object was never successfully accomplished. " The Smithsonian Institution publication No. 3478, (5), by Dr. F. L. Lewton, deserves the reader's attention because it gives an illustrated series of notes and historical facts not given here. Plate I of this Smithsonian publication displays a short description and drawings sent from the United States Patent Office by Wm. Thornton, Esq., for publication by the American Farmer, Feb. 21, 1823, (p.380) two years before the death of Eli Whitney. It shows only spike or wire teeth and closely follows the patent descriptions filed at Savannah, Ga. However, as previously mentioned, Whitney had long since seen the value of the Holmes gin saw because he was a pioneer in mass production methods, and hence adopted the saw teeth, as indicated by the model which is now at the Ford Edison Institute, Dearborn, Mich. This was probably the last model made by Eli Whitney, being also dated 1823. Figure 28.
Photo of the Eli Whitney model cotton gin, using only saws, as made by Whitney about 2 years before his death. Courtesy of the Ford Edison Institute, Dearborn, Michigan. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that both Whitney and Holmes deserve credit for their two great inventions, from which our modern toothed cotton gins have emanated. Until Whitney s partner, Phineas Miller, wrote to him on , Feb. 15, 1797, concerning the use of saw teeth, it is doubtful that Whitney contemplated their use because he displayed only wire teeth in his many lawsuits. The courts recognized Holmes right to saw teeth but did not appear to note their real significance and suitability for mass production methods. Whitney made no financial gain to speak of, in the final accounting, nor did Hodgen Holmes -- but both should be placed in the Hall of Immortals because the world has been blessed by the beat features of each invention. ------ Literature cited: (1) Tompkins, D. A., "Cotton and Cotton Oil," 2 vols., 1901. (2) Leitner, Claude C., "Unknown Makers of America, Henry Ogden Holmes, the Real Inventor of the Cotton Gin, 11 Christian Advocate, 1932. (3) Bennett, Charles Abel, "Early Years of the Cotton Gin," Cotton Gin and Cotton Oil News, 1933. (4) Butterworth, Benjamin, "Growth of Industrial Art," 1886. (5) Lewton, Frederick L., "Historical Notes on the Cotton Gin, " Smithsonian Institution #3478, 1937.
An essay on the law of new patents for new inventions by Thomas G. Fessenden Attorney At Law St. Armstrong, Printed in 1810 Published by D. Mallory, & Co BostonAt a Circuit court of the United States for the District of Georgia was tried the case of Eli Whitney vs. Isiah Carter, for infringing a right vested by patent for a new and useful improvement in the mode of ginning cotton. The plaintiff supported his declaration by proving the patent, model, and specification, and proving the use of the machine in question by the defendant. He also introduced the testimony of several witnesses residing in New Haven to prove the origin and progress of his invention. The defendant rested his defense on two grounds. First, That the machine was not originally invented by Whitney. Second, That the specification does not contain the whole truth relative to the discovery. General Mitchel, of counsel for the defendant, produced a model which was intended to represent a machine used in Great Britain for cleaning cotton, denominated the "Teazer or Devil." A witness was produced who testified that he had seen in England, about seventeen years ago, a machine for separating cotton from the seed which resembled in principle the model now exhibited by the defendant. Another witness testified that he had seen a machine in Ireland upon the same principle which was used for separating the motes from the cotton before going to the carding machine by the machine of which a model was exhibited, the cotton is applied in the first instance to the rollers, made of iron, revolving inversely. By these rollers the fibers are separated from the seeds, and protruded within the sweep of certain straight pieces of wire revolving on a cylinder, which tear and loosen the cotton as they revolve. It was contended by the defendant's counsel that this model conforms in principle to Mr. Whitney's machine, and that the evidence given in support of it establishes a presumption that he must have derived the plan of his machine from a similar one used in the manufactories of Great Britain. In support of the second ground of defense, evidence was produced to show that Mr. Whitney now uses, and that the defendant also uses, teeth formed of circular plates instead of teeth made of wire. And it was contended that was a departure from the specification and an improvement on the original discovery which destroys the merits of that discovery and the validity of plaintiff's patent. It was also contended that the plaintiff concealed the best means of producing the effect contemplated. Mr. Noel, of counsel for the plaintiff, in opposition to the first ground of defense stated two points. First, that if the principle be the same, yet the plaintiff's application of that principle, being new and for a distinct purpose, has all the merits of an original invention. Second, That the principle of Mr. Whitney's machine is entirely different from that exhibited by the defendant. He defined the term principle, as applied to the mechanic arts, to mean the elements and rudiments of those arts, or in other words, the first grounds and rule for them. That for a mere principle a patent cannot be obtained. That neither the elements nor the manner of combining them, nor even the effect produced, can be the subject of a patent, and that it can only be obtained for the application of this effect to some new and useful purpose. To prove this position, several examples were stated of important inventions for which patents had been obtained which had resulted from principles previously in common use, and an argument of a celebrated judge at Westminster Hall was cited in which it was asserted "that two thirds or three fourths of all patents granted since the statute passed are for methods of operating and manufacturing, producing no new substances and employing no new machinery"; and he adds, in the significant words of Lord Mansfield, "a patent must be for a method, detached from all physical existence whatever." The second point was principally relied on, to wit: That the principle of Mr. Whitney's machine is distinct from that produced by the defendant and new in its origin. It consists of teeth, or sharp metallic points, of a particular form and shape, and its application is to separate cotton from the seed; whereas the principle of that model exhibited by the defendant, and of every other machine before invented and used for the same or similar purpose, consists of two small rollers made of wood or iron. In illustration of this point, the plaintiff's counsel cited the following extract from the opinion of the court, delivered by Judge Johnson in December term, 1807, in the case of Whitney and others vs. Fort, upon a bill for injunction. "To support the originality of the invention, the complainants have produced a variety of depositions of witnesses, examined under commission, whose examinations expressly prove the origin, progress, and completion of the machine by Whitney, one of the co-partners. Persons who were made privy to his first discovery testify to the several experiments which he made in their presence before he ventured to expose his invention to the scrutiny of the public eye. But it is not necessary to resort to such testimony to maintain this point. The jealousy of the artist to maintain that reputation which his ingenuity has justly acquired has urged him to take unnecessary pains on this subject. "There are circumstances within the knowledge of all mankind which prove the originality of this invention more satisfactorily to the mind than the direct testimony of a host of witnesses. The cotton plant has furnished clothing to mankind before the age of Herodotus. The green seed is a species much more productive than the black and by nature adapted to a much greater variety of climate; but by reason of the strong adherence of the fiber to the seed, without the aid of some more powerful machine for separating it than any formerly known among us, the cultivation of it could never have been made an object. The machine, of which Mr. Whitney claims the invention, so facilitates the preparation of this species for use that the cultivation of it has suddenly become an object of infinitely greater importance than that of the other species ever can be. Is it then to be imagined that if this machine had been before discovered, the use of it would ever have been lost, or could have been confined to any tract of country left unexplored by commercial enterprise? But it is unnecessary to remark further on this subject. A number of years have elapsed since Mr. Whitney took out a patent, and no one has produced, or pretended to prove the existence of, a machine of similar construction or use. "With regard to the utility of this discovery, the court would deem it a waste of time to dwell long upon this topic. Is there a man who hears us who has not experienced its utility? The whole interior of the southern states was languishing and its inhabitants emigrating for want of some object to engage their attention and employ their industry, when the invention of this machine at once opened views to them which set the whole country in active motion. From childhood to age, it has presented us a lucrative employment. Individuals who were depressed with poverty and sunk in idleness have suddenly risen to wealth and respectability. Our debts have been paid off, our capitals increased, and our lands are trebled in value. We cannot express the weight of obligation which the country owes to this invention; the extent of it cannot now be seen; some faint presentment may be formed from the reflection that cotton is rapidly supplanting wool, flax, silk, and even furs in manufactures and may one day profitably supply the use of specie in our East India trade. Our sister states also participate in the benefits of this invention, for besides affording the raw material for their manufactories, the bulkiness and quality of the article afford a valuable employment for their shipping." The second objection relied on by the defendant was "that the specification does not contain the whole truth respecting the discovery." To this it was answered that by the testimony it appears Mr. Whitney in the original construction of his machine contemplated each mode of making the teeth and doubted which mode was best adapted to the purpose. If the alteration which forms the basis of this objection has the merit of an improvement, how far does it extend? An improvement, not in the principle nor in the operation of the machine, but in making one of the component parts; [page 130] merely in forming the same thing to produce the same effect by means somewhat different. In the case above cited, Judge Johnson remarked on this point as follows: "A Mr. Holmes (Henry Odgen Homes) has cut teeth in plates of iron and placed them over the cylinder. This is certainly a meritorious improvement in the mechanical process of constructing this machine. But at last, what does it amount to except a more convenient mode of making the same thing? Every characteristic of Mr. Whitney's machine is preserved. The counsel for Whitney admitted that an improvement in a particular part of the machine would entitle the inventor to a patent for that specific part, but not for the whole machine, as in the case of Boulton vs. Bull, where a patent was granted for an invention to lessen the quantity of fuel in the use of a certain steam engine. It was decided "that the patent was valid for this improvement, but that it gave no title to the machine itself." It was also stated that by experiments made on the plaintiff's model in the face of the court and jury and by testimony produced, it was apparent no improvement had resulted from this alteration; that no beneficial change or amendment in the principle had taken place, nor had the effect been aided or facilitated. In the charge of the court to the jury, Judge Stevens remarked that the case cited, Whitney and others vs. Fort, was decided without any evidence on the part of the defendant; That from the testimony now produced, his opinion is that the plaintiff must have received his first impressions from a machine previously in use on a similar principle; and that an improvement had been made as to the teeth, by which the merit of Mr. Whitney's invention was diminished. For these reasons Judge Stevens had some doubts whether the plaintiff ought to recover. Judge Johnson remarked that, after hearing the evidence which had been relied on by the defendant, he remained content with the opinion which he had given in the case of Whitney against Fort, and that he was also as fully satisfied with the charge he was about to give as any he had delivered. That as to the origin of this invention the plaintiff's title remained unimpeached by any evidence which has been adduced in this cause. He agreed with the plaintiff's counsel that the legal title to a patent consists not in a principle merely, but in an application of a principle, whether previously in existence or not, to some new and useful purpose. And he was also of opinion that the principle of Mr. Whitney's machine was entirely new, that it originated with himself, and that it had no resemblance to that of the model exhibited by the defendant. He considered the defendant's second objection equally unsupported, and referred to the sixth section of the patent law of the United States, by which it is required that the concealment alleged (in order to defeat the patentee's recovery) must appear to have been made for the purpose of deceiving the public. That Mr. Whitney, in the original formation of this machine, could have no motive for such concealment, and that in making use of wire in preference to the other mode, he appears to have acted according to the dictates of his judgment, the error related to a point not affecting the merits of his invention or the validity of his patent. Verdict for the plaintiff: Damages 1500 dollars.
The Franklin Mint needs to brush up on it's information! When the Franklin Mint's research turned up information about ginning, they didn't research well enough. The coins they minted for a collectable coins are wrong. The coins shows a roller gin and states "Eli Whitney Invents the Cotton Gin". Eli had a patent on a spike gin not a roller gin as shown. The illustration below on the left is a Whitney type gin. The illustration in the middle, from Harpers, is a roller gin. The caption states "The First Cotton Gin". The roller gin was the first cotton gin. The roller gin shown was a modification of the early "Churka" or Indian roller gin. The improved roller gin facilitated the ginning of Sea Island or Long Staple cotton. The coins should have stated Eli Whitney the first to Patent a Spiked Cotton Gin, because the roller gin as been around for many years. Dr. Joseph Eve residing around Augusta, Georgia, introduced the first powered roller gin, in 1790. The Daily output of five Eve Type Roller Gins was 135 pounds per day, but one Whitney Type gin produced 600 to 900 pounds per day. English Textile mills wanted the slower roller ginned sea island cotton (Long Fiber Length) because of quality, but production won over the plantations. When the plantations planted short staple cotton the roller gin was not used. TBClick On Photos To Enlarge
05/09/2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Front page of the Holmes
Saw Gin Patent of 1896. Located for sale at the Kaller Historic Documents Inc.
auction house Marlboro, NJ.
