CHARACTER OF POULTRY JUDGES. . 137 



It may save hiin; but unless of feelings more callous than is uMial among poultrymen, the 

 borrower in the enil resolves that he will never do it again. 



On the whole, it may be said of this particular abuse that while it is prevalent enough to lie 

 a very disturbing influence, the general attitude of exhibitors toward it, and the fiict that of 

 late there has been a good deal of serious discussion of practical ways of preventing it, give 

 reason to hope that it is an evil practice which is doomed to become less and less prevalent. 

 Much might be said of the results of this practice, but the limits of this lesson make it neces- 

 sary to pass over that phase of the subject with the remaik that it develops consequences 

 similar to those consequences of faking which especially concern the purchasers of stock, and 

 develops them in larger proportions and more aggravated type. 



Collusion of Exhibitors and Judges. 



Poultry judges, as a class, are scrupulously careful and honest in placing their awards. 

 Such a statement may surprise some who have at the same time the opposite idea about poultry 

 judges, and Ihink they have observed that I try to make no statements I cannot maintain. But 

 I make this statement deliberately from a tolerably large acquaintance with poultry judges, 

 extending back over many years, in which I have watched their work in the sliow room, seen 

 some of their mistakes there, talked with them, and heard them talk with others about their 

 errors, and learned also of their shortcomings outside of the show room. 



There are few positions in life where it is harder for a man to avoid the appearance of evil 

 "than in the po^ition of poultry judge, and few men who in that position are not constantly 

 <;alled upon to meet situations where they must decide off-hand matters for which anyone 

 would, if possible, ask time for deliberation. This is true of points which must be passed 

 upon in judging; ; equally true and of more importance on points that come up with reference 

 to his relations to oflScials and exhibitors. To some extent it is true of any transaction of any 

 kind in which he may engage. For instance, a judge, as a breeder, may sell exhibition fowls 

 to parties upon whose exhibits he never expects to be called to pass, and in the course of his 

 juilging engagements may recognize those birds. There are very few judges who, in such a 

 case, would not endeavor to place the awards honestly and fairly, yet probably every judge 

 who is ever placed in such a position has realized the difiiculty of feeling sure that he was 

 acting without bias either for or against this stock, and has realized also that if it received 

 awards he would be charged with having favored it — charged with collusion with the exhib- 

 itor; and that if it failed to get recognition the exhibitor might charge him, as a breeder, with 

 selling as first class stock which he, as a judge, would not award a prize. 



There are few, if any, judges who liave managed to keep clear of every possible ground for 

 suggestion or suspicion of collusion with exhibitors. Most judges, without giving chapter and 

 verse, would probably admit in a general way tliat at times they had erred in their relations 

 with officials and exhibitors, as well as made mistakes in the placing of awards. With so 

 many exhibitions, so many judges, and so many exhibitor.-, there is always somewliere some- 

 thing that furnishes occasion for talk about the mistakes or the crookedness, orthe vices of 

 judges, and, given the occasion, there is generally a great deal more talk than the circumstances 

 warrant. Tlie result of it all is to give to many an impression of prevailing wrong doing by 

 judges entirely out of proportion to the actual conditions. 



While it is the little mistakes and little errors of judges that furnish most of the material 

 upon which people build the opinion that crookedness'prevails, there are unquestionably some- 

 times very wrong things done by judges, and often in such cases there is good reason to believe 

 that they are done deliberately. Whether the judges who do them are indifferent to common 

 standards of right and wrong, or leel so convinced of their own integrity and reputation tliat 

 they think they may disregard appearances, I do not know. The general poultry pulilic, and 

 the novices who form an uncomplimentary opinion of judges, hear cotr'paratively little of the 

 larger and worse instances of delinquencies of judges. 



U-ually, with experience in poultry shows, a wider acquaintance with judges, and more par- 

 ticular knowledge of their faults, and of the judges who oftenest furnish occasion for criticism, 

 ■one outgrows the attitude of general condemnation, &nd' applies his disapproval more specific- 



