652 FEDERAL KBPORTEB. �connected to an immovable part of the frame, and every other alter- nate slide is connected to a swinging cros?-bar, which hangs down so as to have a rotating motion back and forth in the arc of a circle by reason of its being hung in bearings in the sides of the frame. A rod extends from nearly the middle of the width of the swinging cross- bar to the rear part of the frame, behind the Une from which the shoes are suspended, which rod is supported in the center of its lengthj and terminates at ita rear end in a handie, so that an operator can work it, and by pulling it shift simiiltaneously all the shoes that are attached to the swinging cross-bar. Two coiled springs are so arranged that when the rod is pulled the springs are compressed, and when the rod is released the action of the springs tends to throw the swinging cross-bar, and the shoes attached to it, towards the front of the frame again, restoring them to the position from which the pull- ing of the rod moved them. Thus, only alternate shoes are shifted, but the advantage of simultaneously changing the relative positions of the toes of the shoes to each other, and thus making a wider space in a straight line between any two toes at one time than at another, is secured, as in the plaintifif's arrangement. �In the defendants' machine the shoes are so set that their toes are never in a straight line across, but, when nearest to each other, are Bomewhat ont of a straight line, and the pulling of the rod causes the distance between them to increase. The shoes which move, in increasing such distance, do so through the rotating motion to and fro of the swinging cross-bar to which they are attached, such motion being imparted by the pulling, at the rear of the machine, of the rod attached to the swinging cross-bar. In the plaintiff's machine the shoes which move in increasing such distance do so through the rotating motion to and fro of the crank-shaft to which they are attached, such motion being imparted by the pushing, at the rear of the machine, of the rod that carries the rack, the rod being worked by a lever. It makes no difference, so far as the use of the real invention of Davis is concerned, that in the defendants' machine only alternate shoes are shifted, and not all the shoes, and that the shoes which are not shifted are fastened to an unmoving bar, and that the actuating rod is in the length of the swinging cross-bar, and not at one end of it, and that the rotating motion of the points where the shoes are attached is accompanied by a hanging down of the swing- ing cross-bar, instead of having the bearings in the line of its axis, and that the actuating rod is pulled directly at its rear end instead of being pushed through a lever, and that the shoes are retracted by ��� �
