494 



HISTORY OF HEREFORD CATTLE 



facts. They assume to be teachers and guides, 

 and taking this position and proving false to 

 the responsibility, they should be held account- 

 able. Our friend says if he "were to take up 

 the cause of any breed he should advocate their 

 merits, and not expose the demerits of other 

 breeds/' We should like to know by what stan- 

 dard he would measure the merits of his own, 

 unless he compared them with others. 



In entering upon the breeding of beef cattle, 

 we found the Shorthorns the dominant and 

 accepted breed for that purpose, in this country. 

 We appeared before our state agricultural so- 

 cieties and placed the Herefords beside the 

 Shorthorns ; we asked our societies to pass upon 

 the merits of the breeds as represented by those 

 upon exhibition. The question, then, was 

 opened, as a matter of course, as to the com- 

 parative merits of Herefords and Shorthorns; 

 from this point the discussion was continued. 

 Our State Society discriminated in favor of 

 Shorthorns by giving them larger premiums, 

 and thus, by inference, declaring to the world 

 that they were the better cattle. They sub- 

 mitted the question of merit between the breeds 

 to men selected from or by the Shorthorn breed- 

 ers to act as judges. The question then as to 

 the merits and demerits of breeds was here open- 

 ed ; we had to accept of it, and when they claim- 

 ed a half century's acceptance of their cattle as 

 evidence of merit over the Herefords, it compell- 

 ed us to go back of the merits of the individuals 

 as they stood upon the show grounds and in- 

 quire as to the methods by which the Short- 

 horns had obtained their endorsements. We 

 have placed the result of these examinations 

 before our readers and the world. On these 

 facts we appealed to the cattle raisers of Amer- 

 ica and the verdict has been reversed; the 

 Herefords are now accepted as the best and 

 have taken the place among the cattle breeders 

 of the country to which their merits always 

 entitled them. Such a revelation could hardly 

 be accepted without more or less bitter feeling ; 

 it was to be expected that the Shorthorn breed- 

 ers and advocates, with their associates, certain 

 editors of live stock journals, finding the facts 

 against them, should resort to vindictive and 

 bitter personal attacks to cover the weakness 

 of their position. 



Presenting a breed of cattle, as we have, 

 claiming an advantage on the score of economy 

 and value of product over this dominant Short- 

 horn breed, we were compelled to show wherein 

 this value consisted, and the weakness of the 

 Shorthorn claims. All we asked was a full and 

 fair investigation into the claims and facts that 

 we presented; if they had not merit, then we 



were not entitled to the verdict; if they had, 

 we expected the Herefords to find acceptance 

 and we expected to have that position as an 

 advocate of these claims that belongs to us. 



So influential was the opposition that a few 

 contemporary Hereford breeders, actuated by 

 jealousy, were prevailed upon to cravenly criti- 

 cize our methods and to belittle our work; 

 while at the same time taking every possible 

 advantage of what we had done almost single- 

 handed. The opposition called us a "kicker," 

 knowing full well, that only a persistent and 

 consistent "kicker" could make the slightest 

 headway against their adverse and perverse 

 machinations. 



On account of our activity, this fight became 

 for a time a personal one upon the writer. Hav- 

 ing control of the shows our opponents made 

 our retirement from the show ring imperative. 

 Other Hereford breeders might get a semblance 

 of justice, but we could not. Having estab- 

 lished an agricultural journal in which our 

 Hereford writings would not be garbled and 

 misrepresented, the opposition press was forced, 

 as it were, to gnash their teeth in their im- 

 potent rage and vent their spleen in personal 

 abuse of us. 



At this writing (1898) history appears to 

 be repeating itself in the case of the leading 

 Hereford advocate. Let Hereford breeders be- 

 ware, that they play not into the hands of their 

 opponents by a failure at all times to recognize 

 and publicly acknowledge the value of the work 

 of those who have fought and of those who still 

 honestly, openly and courageously fight the bat- 

 tles of their breed. 



With this word of warning brought forth of 

 much experience, and having given our reasons 

 for engaging in the unpleasant task of contro- 

 verting the position assumed by the Shorthorns, 

 we will reproduce what was said at the time 

 in the "Breeders' Journal," in regard to the 

 court before which the adverse claims were 

 brought. 



We will consider our Illinois State Board of 

 Agriculture. Has it been of a partisan character 

 in the past ? Has it been run in the Shorthorn 

 interest? We answer these questions again in 

 the affirmative, and will bring more proof to 

 sustain our position from the records of the 

 society. 



Up to and including 1870, excepting a few 

 Devons, there were no breeds to dispute the 

 superiority of the Shorthorns. The question as 

 to partial judgments was confined to the breed- 

 ers of the different families of Shorthorns. We 

 find that Mr. A. B. McConnell, in his inaugural 

 address as president (1865), says that "the so- 



