HISTORY OF HEREFORD CATTLU 



493 



CHAPTER XLI. 



THE HEREFORD VERSUS SHORTHORN MR. MILLER RE-STATES 



His POSITION 



A3 we have had considerable to say about 

 the methods used by Shorthorn men in Amer- 

 ica to hold their cattle in the position that 

 they claimed for their breed, before the Here- 

 ford came into the arena demanding a fair field 

 and no favors, we considerately put what we 

 have further to say on this subject at the end 

 of the History. 



In the times of our great activity in the 

 Hereford cause we received a letter from an old 

 ex-editor, who says: "I regret that the fight 

 between the Shorthorns and Herefords has 

 assumed a personal and bitter character, which 

 is so damaging to the breeders taking part in 

 it. The press may gain somewhat from the in- 

 terest thus excited, but is not the sacrifice of 

 individuals too great and in a great measure 

 unnecessary? If I ever take up the cause of 

 any breed of stock, it will be to advocate its 

 merits, and not to expose the demerits of their 

 opponents. I regret that you have become per- 

 sonally the object of such bitter attack, but at 

 the same time, know of no one who could more 

 successfully ward off the blows." 



In reply to the remarks of our ex-editor, we 

 contended that an erroneous situation had been 

 fraudulently established by the Shorthorn in- 

 terest. 



To meet the claims and the demands of the 

 Shorthorn advocates, we went back in history 

 one hundred years, and brought up their rec- 

 ord. This record shows that Youatt's History 

 of British Cattle was fraudulent, in that it 

 suppressed facts detrimental to Shorthorns and 

 favorable to Herefords. We brought out the 

 record showing the organization and manage- 

 ment of the agricultural fairs to have been in 

 the interest of the Shorthorn breeders. We 

 showed that the advocates of the Shorthorns 

 used Youatt's History of British Cattle and the 

 awards rendered at the Agricultural Societies 

 to support their claims. We charged that the 

 press supported the Shorthorn breed on the 

 evidence thus produced by the Shorthorn man- 



agers. We brought forward the record of the 

 Herefords, and this record placed them in the 

 lead of all other breeds as beef producers. The 

 course we have taken has not been based on our 

 own opinion simply, but upon recorded facts, 

 tests and experiments, that are accessible to the 

 Shorthorn advocates as well as to ourselves. 

 These Shorthorn advocates have never met the 

 facts, but have resorted to personal abuse, hop- 

 ing thereby to mislead the bullock breeders, 

 and by so doing retain their position. 



In years past the press accepted Youatt's 

 History of British Cattle as authority; they 

 accepted the awards rendered at the agricul- 

 tural societies in this country and England as 

 fairly made and rendered; and basing their 

 actions on these facts, gave their support to 

 the breeders of Shorthorn cattle, as did their 

 predecessors and those especially interested in 

 Shorthorns. We claim that the facts we pre- 

 sented were entitled to the attention and ex- 

 amination of said press, and that those failing 

 to give this attention and examination are, or 

 were, parties to the fraud that has been handed 

 down to them from their predecessors. 



The press occupies another and more import- 

 ant relation to this question. They are bound 

 to know whether these facts are true; they are 

 bound to investigate; they are bound to give 

 the results of this investigation to their readers, 

 if they would act in good faith. They claim 

 to be disinterested, to have no interest in any 

 breed, and they ask their readers to believe not 

 only what they say is true, but they ask their 

 readers also to believe that they are intelligent 

 and well-informed on these subjects. Failing 

 in this investigation and examination, they per- 

 petuate the fraud that has been handed down 

 to them. We are now prepared to ask, by what 

 terms should the acts of these Shorthorn advo- 

 cates and these editors, be characterized ? We 

 believe that it is fraudulent to present issues 

 that have no foundation in merit or fact; we 

 believe that the editor is bound to know the 



