io6 THE MORGAN HORSE 



of 1795. Mr. Morgan returned to Randolph apparently with no tax- 

 able property. William Rice, who had a list in Randolph from 1792 

 to 1796, took the horse for a debt, moved to Woodstock, and appa- 

 rently disposed of him as soon as he found a customer. If it was 

 this winter that Evans had the horse, then he got into the hands of 

 Rice in the spring or summer of 1796. Jonathan Shcpard of Mont- 

 pelier bought him of Rice at Woodstock early enough in the season of 

 1796 to breed him to some mares; and he, as shown by the record, 

 disposed of him, in the farm trade, to James Hawkins, February 14, 

 1797. 



Justin Morgan, 2d, in his first letter, wrote : " I know my 

 father, while he lived, called him a Dutch horse". In his second let- 

 ter he qualifies this by saying : " I well remember that my father 

 always spoke of him as a horse of the best blood". This remark 

 about the " Dutch horse" has given rise to considerable comment, 

 those making it seeming to forget that New York and the country 

 around it was settled by the Dutch. We frequently speak of Cana- 

 dian horses, Kentucky horses, or Vermont horses, because they are 

 associated with those regions. And so, undoubtedly, Justin Morgan 

 called his horse " Dutch" because his sire came from, and was owned 

 in, a Dutch settlement. 



Mr. Morgan has left us under his own hand what he had to say 

 seriously of the pedigree of his horse. 



This closes the examination of the pedigree of the horse Justin 

 Morgan. If excuse were needed for the space given to this part of 

 our subject, it could be found in the paragraph wherewith Mr. Linsley 

 closes the like part of his " Morgan Horses", as follows: "We have 

 devoted more time and space to this subject than may be thought 

 advisable by some of our readers, as no pedigree, however perfectly 

 it might be established, or how far back it might be traced through 

 any breed of horses, could enhance the value of the race at the 

 present time ; for, as an intelligent writer has observed : ' Before 

 animals have produced progeny, the best evidence of what their 

 progeny will be is what their ancestors have been, because there is 

 a tendency to breed back. Animals of the same blood, how- 

 ever, are not equally valuable as breeders; hence the surest evidence 

 of the value of a breeding animal is the character of the stock it 

 produces. Thus the value of pedigree consists in affording in ad- 

 vance an indication of the value of an animal as a breeder, but the 

 character of the offspring and descendants may be regarded as ex- 

 hibiting the degree of value it possesses ; the one may be regarded 

 as prima facie evidence, the other as demonstrative'. Pedigree is, 



