SHOW CRITICISM OR REPORTIIVG. 



225 



the stewards, to find that our rough pencil notes 

 on the Brahma classes, at that very show, had 

 occupied us longer time, by a good proportion, 

 than the two judges had taken over them ! But 

 a really competent critic is also in a better 

 position to judge, from the nature of the case. 

 He has the judge's work prepared for him as a 

 basis, and in the second place he has a cata- 

 logue. The latter, with its names, places him 

 in a position of very great advantage in many 

 respects, if he really knows the breed and its 

 chief breeders, as he ought to do. It teaches 

 him what to look for, in so far that good points 

 usually shown by a given breeder are not likely 

 to be overlooked by him. He has no motive for 

 disagreeing with the judge (apart from any 

 special cause of jealousy, against which his 

 editor will of course be constantly on the watch), 

 but will rather desire to agree with him ; and 

 with all this help he is really able, if of the right 

 sort, very often to form the best judgment. It 

 is not at all that he is personally the better 

 judge ; on the contrary, if he were the judge and 

 the other man the reporter, then the latter 

 would be in the better position, other things 

 being equal. 



So great is this advantage, that we have for 

 long been inclined to advocate placing cata- 

 logues in the hands of the judges themselves. 

 Tranucribing words written so long ago as 1875, 

 " Whatever may be said as to a good judge being 

 able to judge a specimen without knowing whose 

 it is, after many actual experiments made as 

 fairly as we have been able to make them, we 

 are more than ever convinced that it is much 

 easier to form a just estimate of the real merit 

 of a class when in the full possession of such 

 particulars as a catalogue affords, than without 

 them. We feel this so strongly, that often- 

 times we have felt almost ashamed to find fault 

 with the work of gentlemen who have had to 

 decide under such disadvantages." It is, of 

 course, easy to ask what guarantee there would 

 be for impartiality under such a frank system, 

 and it is not easy to reply ; but, on the other 

 hand, one may ask what guarantee there really 

 is under the present, beyond the character of the 

 judges. That these recognise many exhibits 

 from memory, and are glad to catch at such a 

 memory as leading to awards which shall at least 

 appear "consistent," is notorious. That judges 

 of " shady " character do also get to know the 

 exhibits of their friends, is equally so ; straws or 

 chaff in the pens, handfuls of grit, etc., have been 

 identified as methods of telegraphy. Now the 

 main evil of this has lain in the fact that the 

 judge who really did know was supposed — but 

 only supposed — not to know ; if he was chal- 



lenged he affirmed that he knew nothing, and 

 had done his best honestly, the merely presumed 

 ignorance being thrown over his collusion as a 

 shield. If he admittedly knew all the entries, 

 that excuse would be stopped ; he would have 

 no defence but the real merits of his award, and 

 his own interest might compel him to guard 

 against suspicion of being influenced by mere 

 names. However, the present point is simply 

 the vantage ground thus occupied by a really 

 competent and skilled reviewer of the judge's 

 awards. 



Two points — we write it from long and ample 

 experience — need constant care, as regards crit- 

 ical reports: Impartiality and competence. The 



principal journals keep a certain 

 Essentials of staff in their permanent employ, 

 Good who are quite independent ; but 



Criticism. no journal can adequately report the 



great number of poultry exhibitions 

 now, without the additional aid of some who are 

 themselves exhibitors. Many such make the 

 very best of reporters, from special knowledge 

 of their special breeds. But flesh is weak ; and 

 if anyone upon this outside staff of a journal is 

 lound stating or hinting in his reports that his 

 birds, or the birds of those whom it may 

 gradually be discovered are his friends or col- 

 leagues, do not get their deserts, or should stand 

 higher, the position is abused. It is equally 

 abused if an exhibitor is found bragging of his 

 commission, or using it to obtain favours from 

 breeders, or to obtain admission where he has 

 no business to be, or to handle birds as if the 

 show belonged to him ; all which things have 

 happened. A competent and scrupulous re- 

 porter will always be quiet and modest in 

 manner and proceedings, and take care to 

 keep himself on safe ground by procuring 

 official presence and sanction for any examin- 

 ation which he deems it his duty to ask for. One 

 or two ofTences may pass, as the result of inex- 

 perience or want of consideration, but should 

 receive notice and caution ; if such a course be 

 persisted in, a journal that values its reputation 

 will sever the connection, in discharge of its own 

 duty and responsibility to the poultry fraternity. 

 That there are fairly honest and very skilful 

 critics who yet succumb to such temptations we 

 know ; that there are some who rise above them, 

 quite sinking the mere exhibitor in the critic for 

 the time being, we also know ; and it is a serious 

 part of the responsibility of a poultry journal to 

 know the staff, who hold so much of its reputa- 

 tion in their hands. 



Competence or ability also requires sedulous 

 concern. Many most capable and honourable 

 critics cannot write genuine "criticism" without 



