128 The Dog Book 



sensus of opinion was that the setters at this show were very badly judged. 

 We might add to that that we know they were not properly judged, but as 

 the awarder of the ribbons has joined the majority, this is neither the time 

 nor the place to speak further. Another excellent importation was Royal 

 Prince 11. , shown most successfully through the shows of 1887 and 1889. 



The Dark Days of the "Tennessee Setters" 



A very good American-bred dog was competing at this time named 

 Roger, getting either first or second at a number of good shows. He was 

 shown for three years at New York, and was second on each occasion. He 

 was a big, sound dog, of good conformation, but failed in quality just 

 enough to keep him out of the top rank. One would imagine that with all 

 this education as to what an English setter should look like it would have 

 been impossible for any person qualified to judge the breed to go wrong, but 

 such was not the case. Judges who had seen dogs at the field trials did not 

 seem able to forget that the sires of certain dogs shown under them in the 

 ring had run well in the field, and it must have been on that account alone 

 that many decisions were made by men who had placed dogs properly on 

 prior occasions and have shown better judgment since then. 



As most of these singular and angular dogs came from Tennessee, those 

 who attacked the bad judging gave them the name of the "Tennessee 

 setters" and derided them to the full extent of their ability. Occasionally 

 since then we have been asked what a Tennessee setter is, the inquirer being 

 under the impression that it was some specially good line of the breed. As 

 illustrative of what the "Tennessee setters" looked like we give the criticism 

 of Mr. Mason on the dog that won first and special in a class of twenty-four 

 dogs at a leading show of 1887, the extract being from "Our Prize Dogs" — 

 a most valuable contribution to kennel literature, containing full descrip- 

 tions with criticism on all the prize winners of that period: 



"Skull and muzzle fairly good, also eyes, ears and lips. Neck well 

 formed and of sufficient length. Chest very defective, the ribs showing 

 scarcely any deviation from a straight line, and being attached to the verte- 

 brae in about the same way that the legs of a milking stool are set in. The 

 result of this structural defect is a narrow, slab-sided chest, lacking incapacity 

 for lodgment of heart and lungs, and a narrow, weak back. The short ribs 

 should be much deeper and better spread, and the loin, instead of being flat^ 



