ee i 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
231 
all of which were written in the editor's office. For myself I 
may say that no “deal” can be arranged with me, When I 
aim silenced justice shall have been done, and when the bless- 
ings of peace dethrone the horrors of war, that peace shall be 
peace with honor, My case has been too strong from the fitst 
for it ever to be shaken by the villainous attacks of an indi- 
vidual charged with offenses blacker than have syver previ- 
ously been placed at the door of the editor of a sportsman’s, 
or would-be sportsman’s journal, I am told that when the 
outrageous and uuprincipled attack on Mr, Davidson was over 
his vilifier boasted that he had sent an arrow to his (David- 
son’s) heart which could neyer be withdrawn, But time, the 
healer of all wounds. has shown one man to be honest and 
the other corrupt. A public, miseuided for a while, has finally 
rendered an unanimous verdict in favor of the attacked, In 
the future the public will be guided only by such evidence as 
it knows to be true. . 
Precisely the same tactics haye been resorted to in the case 
of myself. The same kinds of editorialsindulged in, supported 
by the usual anonymous letters praising the editor for his 
“justice” and his “high minded conduct.” There have been 
the same attempts to influence and to gag the independent 
press, but the scheme failed. Arrows were made out of every 
sort of wood. but they failed to reach my heart—corruption 
had unsteadied the hand of their maker and exposure to fraud 
had bent his bow double, and rotted its string, Because I 
would not knuckle down to a person who had previously ad- 
mitted to me (in conversation at the New York show of 1881) 
his total ignorance of every breed of dog, who had in my 
presence pronounced a dog minus two ribs the best specimen 
ever seen in America, a person who had passed his hands 
over the place where those ribs were taken out and failed 
to discover their removal, an individual who had the 
audacity to expect me to how to his will, write a re- 
port in support of his own views and gull a confid- 
ing public; because [ would not sell my convictions, a 
“select” meeting was called at the last Chicago show 
(press of business prevents the editor attending shows in any 
other State than finois), at which it was decided that ‘‘we 
will go for Mason,” The prelude was the “high-minded” 
letter, “What is Beaufort?’ which was supposed /by some 
Beer to have heen written frem New York. Then followed 
hose “high-minded,” independent (%) and very logical edi- 
torials, the first of which drew from a gentleman connected 
with an English paper the remark that the editor ‘‘is insane.” 
They were supported ({) by the usual intelligent anonymous 
letters, a most substantial Indorsement of the editor's courage 
and of the independent standing of his paper. It was about 
this time that the great exponent of “Christian charity” wrote 
to Hngland asking a gentleman to ‘write something about 
Mason.” But the gentleman didn’t know of anything to write 
about thit would serve the purpose of the sportsman’s (inde- 
pendent) journal. Mr, Dalziel, however, had a little shot at 
me about bragging, I forgave him cheerfully, for he had not 
at that time read one-half the controversy. Whenhe did read 
it, | venture to say his keen scent put him on the track of 
some very shady work. Certainly Mr. Dalziel never has 
been an advocate for Bang Bang letters, or for judges letting 
their dogs out to exhibitors for competition under their 
own judgeship; neither was he, when I was in England, a 
friend to false pedigrees and similar frauds. But why did 
hot “the petty canine ezar” quote from his favorite paper, 
the Shooting Times, as well asfrom Mr. Dalziel’s letter. Had 
he done this, his readers, few though they are, would have 
read; “‘We are surprised to see Ma. Mason going in for that 
sort of thing. Weknew him personally. and he was a gentle- 
manly, quiet and unassuming man, whom we would have 
thought the very last to start a solid protest against a judge. 
However, possibly he may have had some strong reasons for 
thus departing from the beaten track; but what those reasons 
may he we know not.” By this time the Shooting Times will 
know what those reasons are, and it will also have learned 
that when I discoyer disreputable practices striking tothe very 
heart of dogs, dog shows and field trials, or when I find a 
Punic press attempting to override the public tothe detriment 
of the hest interests of dog lovers, J am not, after all, such a 
quiet being. 
Lhave not until recently had the slightest intention of re- 
plying to the insulting concocted queries put to me by the 
editor of the sportsman’s “independent” journal, as anything 
from his pen is judged by Lhe same standard as he himself is 
judged. But several of my friends have urged me to notice 
those questions, their argument being that those people who 
have not followed his writings, watched his career and read 
his history may be guyed into placing some reliance on his 
Statements. Such people might possibly be numbered by the 
fingers of one hand; nevertheless, I will, by your courtesy, re- 
ply. Those who know me best, have, of course, been fully 
aware from the first that each accusation was false in every 
particular, but they argue that my silence is the incentive to 
further concoctions, and so 1 will, acting in accordance with 
your sentiments, expressed in “Concerning Dictatorship,” 
hand the case over for the arbitrament of the public. There 
shall be no “dodging” on my part, and I do not intend to 
tolerate any when J put a few questions in return. 
Concoction No, 1 is as follows: ‘“‘After the last New York 
show, Mr, Mason male a remark toa gentleman (whose name 
we will give when Mr. Mason denics the statement), that he 
intended to devote the remainder of his life to breaking up 
legitimate shows.” This is a malicious and deliberate concoe- 
tion, and I now summon theindividual who made it to give 
the gentleman’s name, What] have said a hundred times, 
and now repeat is, that I would never rest wntil I had exposed. 
some of the trickery that was going on. I have been true to 
my word (vide pointer controversy), The gentleman’s name 
will tell what truth there is in the statement. f 
2, “Can he [myself] tell us of an American judge doing what 
he did at the Washington show, which was before judging the 
pointers, to declare: “A pointer would get the award this time, 
not sich a thing as Duchess, which was not a pointer at all.’ 
Furthermore, he had a gentleman to whom he told this under- 
stand that the pointer biteh which he had sold some time pre- 
viously, would be awarded the prize. Mr, Garrett Roach 
withdrew Duchess” This is a mean, contemptible con- 
coction, and IL challenze the perpetrator of it to 
five proot of his statement or stand conyicted of something 
infinitely worse than falsehood. The character who puts the 
question to me was, as usual, not ati the show, neither was his 
reporter. He wrote me that he had great confidence in my 
ability as a judge, and would esteem it a favor if [ would re- 
port the show for him, adding the request that he would like 
me to keep the matter strictly quiet; he wished his reporter 
to have the credit of my judgment. I did write a report, a 
conscientious report, biwhich I puinted out the good and bad 
qualities of several dogs owned by his friends and by stock- 
hoidersimthe paper, Dogs which by him had been represented 
as the best in the world were criticised fairly and squarely 
according to merit. Outside of every other consideration, my 
position aud reputation would not have permitted me to in- 
dorse the blundering, untrustworthy reports of such a novice. 
My tTepott was suppressed, ‘‘It never reached Chicago,” 
though I mailed it myself at the New York general office— 
nevertheless he paid my charges for it, Had he received it, I 
shonld not in all probability have made any charge, as ‘he did 
not receive it,” Lmade him pay for it. Iwas not alive to all 
his dodges at that time, thouch Lhad been warned to “be- 
ware.” A score or more gentlemen can testify that as soon 
as I reached the show Mr, lincoln asked me to judge the set- 
ters for him, and T had not even the time allowed tu bench my 
own dogs before 1 was called into the ring. Duchess was 
never even allided to by me. Mr. Roach withdrew her, 
knowing that I ooject to black nose and eyes in a lemon and 
white pointer, 
oo “Will My, Mason explain the sale ofthe pointer Chancellor 
to a gentleman of Baltimore as a, first-class field dog when he 
was utterly worthless?’ Misrepresentation again, Lsold the 
dog for $75 and never did represent him as a first-class field 
dog, though I stated that he was represented to mo as a good 
field dog, The purchaser wrote me that he was much pleased 
with the doz. A month later he wished to return it; I ob- 
jected, and should always do so under similar circumstances. 
4, “Can Mr. Mason cite us an instance of a more ungentle- 
manly act and # more outrageous breach of conlidence than 
the manner in which he obtained Beaufort?’ There was no 
breach of confidence on my part in any shape or form, as Mr. 
Nixon can and I hope will testify, and this is but another illus- 
tration of the corruption of the ‘petty canine czar.” A gentle 
man who had the refusal cf Beaufort came to me and made 
known to methatif I wished to purchase Beaufort it should be 
done at once,as somebody else (Mr. Thayer I think he said) was 
after the dog, [therefore instructed the rentleman who had the 
refusal of the dog to purchase in my behalf if he could get the 
dog for $1,000 or near that price. He did buy Beaufort and I 
handed him a check for $1,000, which sum was forwarded to 
Mr. Nixon by Adams Express. I hold the receipt for the 
money, also Mr. Nixon’s receipt, and I now challenge the ex- 
ponent of fair play and “Christian charity” to give proof of 
a breach of contidence on my part, If he does not furnish 
such proof I will bring another charge against bim, and he 
can then repeat the following, which I take from his inde- 
pendent(?) paper, New York(?) and Chicago, Sept. 13, 1884: 
“When the abundant fruits of honest, manly labor are brought 
home and the laborers see in them ample provision for the 
future, there mingles with the sense of security a justifiable 
feeling of pride that the harvest has been fairly earned and is 
nothing more than the well-deserved reward of faithful toil.” 
5. “Will Mr. Mason give us the true version of the Paddel- 
ford matter?’ This question is asked Aug. 16, and in the same 
issue I read, *‘He (Mr, Mason) shall never pollute our columns,” 
I fail to see how I could give the information to “us” when 
“we” closed “our” columns toareply. But this is modern jour- 
nalism as set forth by the advocate for ‘‘Christian charity,” 
“honest, manly labor,” etc., etc. The same notorious advo- 
cate writes (Oct, 11, 1884), “We believe in dealing fairly with 
eyery one, and consider a lie the poorest investment possible.” 
No wonder, when a 
vestments, that one o 
man) should have offered his shares for sale for 50 cents at the 
last New York show, No takers. Well, I cheerfully give the 
true and only version of the Paddelford matter. Mr. P. 
wished to purchase some of my dogs when I sold out 
my kennel, and I let him haye them at the best prices 
Icould get for them, One or two of the dogs had been 
grossly misrepresented by the sportsman’s independent jour- 
nal, ‘“New York and Chicago,” and possibly these dogs brought 
a better price than they were really worth. But I have gen- 
erally understood that when a man has an article for sale, he 
not unusually gets rid of it to the best possible advantage, so 
long as he does not misrepresent, and is willing to allow a care- 
ful examination of such article. This I believe to be business 
all the world over, and lam supported in my views by the 
fact that the individual who asks the question of me, sells his 
“Independent” paper every Saturday for ten cents a copy 
when it is really not worth two cents a copy. The difference 
between the twotransactions lies righthere. When Idisposed 
of my dogs I sold them and nothing else. But when my inter- 
rogator sells his paper, he sells the public at the same time. I 
trust this explanation is satisfactory and free from ‘‘dodging.” 
6. The infamous concoction of my having tried ‘to influence 
a decision of the judge at the Pittsburgh show of 1883, has 
been pronounced false in every particular by the judge him- 
self, and the worthy parent has been compelled to print a 
denial and eat hisowao words. If his reputation as a corrupt 
trickster is not established it never will be until he meets the 
charges I will bring against him. 
7. “Now, let this mass of concentrated purity (?) fmyself] 
answer us if he ever knew an American judge to sell a lot of 
dogs, become the manager of the kennel, eecept the position 
to judge the classes to which the dogs belonged, and in which 
he knew they would be entered, accompany them to the 
show, judge them, and award them the prizes.” The man 
does not live who can prove me guilty of such conduct and I 
now call for proof. The mere assertion by _a corrupt person 
is not evidence, never was, never willbe. But why does this 
individual ask the question, when he had previously written 
ine to ascertain if there was any truth in the report and { de- 
nied that there was. Iwas not the manager for any man at 
the time of the London show, neither did I accompany any 
dogs to the show. I demand evidence without any dodgine. 
‘We believe in dealing fairly with every one and consider a lie 
the poorest investment possible.” 
8. ‘Was itthe act.of aman who desired purity in judges, 
when taking his dogin the ring at the last New York show, 
to tell Mr. Dana, the judge, in a low tone, that he had beaten 
Hero at the New Haven show?” It is untrue that I told Mr. 
Dana Thad beaten Hero. It has too much become the fashion 
for men to beat dogs, and the practice has been encouraged 
for years by the sportsman’s “independent” journal, hence 
the editor thinks that whenever a dog wins, the owner has 
“fixed it,” I cheerfully admit having told Mr. Dana, but not 
in a low tone, that Nevison (not myself) beat Hero at New 
Haven. I believe that when a man has shown his utter ina- 
bility to judge mastifis by any standard (vide sportsman’s 
‘Sndependent” journal’s report of the New York show, 13881), 
he should judge them by record and be told what the record 
is, or, like another judge, have the classes judged for him be- 
fore he goes into the ring, These are my views, right or 
wrong, and I will defend them. 
To clear himself of what he wrote of me before I refused 
to be influenced by him, the ‘‘petty canine czar”? says he 
vinted what I told him to print. Really, I don’t think he 
jold any more than he gathered from the English papers, 
from which he loves to swell his columns every week. But is 
it not a new departure in journalism to pack a paper with any 
trash people may tell the editor to write? This confession of 
how the paper is ‘‘padded” scarcely warrants a charge of 
“padding” against the papers which expose such thorough 
rot. Mr. Lilewellin’s ‘‘rival” must have been trying to perpe- 
trate a huge joke when he wrote that at the London show I 
was ‘‘sandwiched in between two honest and competent men, 
Messrs. Taylor and Lincoln.” However, perhaps he is aware 
that very frequently the best part of a sandwich is in the 
middle, 
Now it’s my turn to put a few questions to the editor of the 
spoltsman’s “independent” journal, the National American 
ennel Club Stud Book,and other defunct organs. [request that 
my questions be answered without any dodging. Perhaps our 
only: (?) authority willlament the “rarity of Christian charity,” 
bat bas he not written (New York (#) and Chicago, Aug, 23, 
1884) ‘‘When a man expresses an opinion or performs an act, 
it is understood that those to whom such is addressed or who 
are aitected by it, haye the right of reply. Vhe speaker or 
actor cannot object to this, as he knows beforehand that he 
will lay himeelf open to it, and 1f he does not wish to en- 
counter it he has only to keep hisideas to himself. * * * 
Noman has a right to expect that his blunders or his wrong 
doing will be permitted to pass wochallenged,” Precisely so. 
Now: 
1. Who offered a “solid silver cup” ata field trial, which 
cup was won by Grouse Dale? 
2%. Did Mr. Buckingham, the owner of Grouse Dale, ever get 
that cup? Ifso, when didhe getit? 
' 3. Is it honest on the part of any individual who has never 
assed even 4 preliminary examination to dub himself Dr, 
before his name)? T 
4, How ean a paper be edited in New York and Chicago 
when its editor and manaver never enters New York State? 
5, Why does its editor neyer enter New York State? 
Paper is heayily freighted with such in- 
the stockholders (a Pittsburgh gentle- 
‘ Geom he pocketed the subscriptions to the N, A. K, C. Stud 
{ols} 
7. Who borrowed Mr, Tom Jerome’s Gordon setter, sold the 
dog for $200, and pocketed the money? 
For the present I will content myself with seyen questions, 
which is one less than asked of rae and which I have answered. 
True, I have some more in pickle, one of which is exceedingly 
choice, but let these be answered first without any dodging; 
just by way Of a start, and to assist in gathering in the *‘fruits 
of honest, manly labor,” Then in my next [ will show your 
readers what modern journalism really is; just one example, 
however, before I take my leave: 
Sportsman’s (‘independent *’) Letter from the editor of the 
journal. New York and Chicago, sportsman’s(‘‘independent’’) jour- 
Ang, 23, 1894: “It seems very nal: “Chicago, June 24, 1884. 
difficult for some men to differ ©. WH. Mason, Wsq.: Dear Sir.— 
with their fellows in a gentle. * * * Imconclusion you can go 
manly manner.’ to the devil.” 
JHAS, BH, Mason, 
Wust Bricuron, Staten Island, Oct. 14, 1884. 
NATIONAL BREEDERS’ 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
One duty remains for me to perform, and one which I freely 
acknowledge my inability to perform, at least with satisfac- 
tion to myself, It isto thank you for the manner in which 
you hayvesuppor ed the National Breeders’ Dog Show. Not- 
withstanding the fact which you so clearly set forth that the 
show was promoted and upheld by gentlemen whose very 
names should have carried conviction anywhere, that the 
judges were experts and selected for that reason alone, and 
that the financial backing was equal, if necessary, to paying 
the prizes tenfold, the project still lacked one thing—support 
from an independent, honest and respected journal. That 
the ForEsT awp StREAM did us the great fayor to supply, not 
rushing in blindly to support the project simply because it 
had been attacked, but exercising that caution which is the 
true foundation of progressive journalism, making sure of 
your ground. Knowing thatl could, ‘‘without prejudice,” as 
the lawyers say, place you in full possession of all my own 
knowledge in the case, I did so with full confidence that you 
would do justice without fear or favor. 
Iam aware, to some extent at least, of the attempts to 
coerce you toward a different course, but neither you nor I 
yet know the full extent of the deep-seated antagonism. I 
doubt if you would believe all I could tell of the conduct of 
persons who so far have been looked upon as above petty jeal- 
ousy, but in this affair have gone so far as to insinuate what 
they knew to be false, One prominent judge even went sofar 
as to personally canvas among Canadian exhibitors with a 
view of stopping their entering their dogs. Strange to say, 
however, the gentlemen whose promises he thought he had 
secured have entered at the National Breeders’ Show. The 
Western “‘fly on the wheel,” whose ground and lofty tumbling 
so admirably suits his character of the canine clown, has once 
more come to grief, but never before has he made sucha 
lamentable failure. No prizes were to be paid unless suflicient 
money was taken at the door, no judges of any pretensions to 
respectability would be asked or consent to officiate, and no 
one would exhibit, because—vell, because the man who fondly 
imagines he holds in his hands the destinies of the dog shows 
of the country said he would not support it. As Tlhaye already 
said, every rumor that would prejudice exhibitors, every state- 
ment that would fora moment pass current as truth, was 
mustered into the service, and whatis the result? Simply 
this; The money to pay the prizes is now in my possession 
over and abovyeall expenses yet to be met, tne judges are un- 
assailable on any score whatever (would they not have been 
attacked if it were otherwise?), and we have an entry list 
which exceeds in point of numbers nearly every show, except 
that of the Westminster Kennel Club, eyen including those 
which received the lavish support of the great mogul (in his 
mind’s eye, Horatio). 
It was 4 square fight, and looking at it as a dog fight, I was 
decidedly the under dog, no question about that. I had some 
points in my favor; I may be wrong, perhaps, using the per- 
sonal pronoun, but I had to do all the work, the gentlemen 
who were the financial support of the show were willing to 
stand to their guns, but they were the reseryes and to me fell 
the duty of skirmishing, making and receiving charges and 
doing all I could to turn the tide of victory in favor of anew .- 
era of independence. Besides possessmg the complete con- 
fidence of the supporters of the show, there were two things in 
my favor, the support of FoREST AND STRHAM and the honesty 
of the enterprise. It was honesty against false repre- 
sentation, truth against falsehood and the still meaner lie 
which is half alie. But what ofthe result? Well, the result 
is but half accomplished yet, The first half was the hardest 
bit of the fight, and we haye pulled through away ahead of our 
expectations, and the enemy is demoralized. To-day and to- 
morrow are but a breathing spell during which we can figur- 
atively flap our wings and crow our lustiest and then go at it 
again to put on the “silt edge” by making the exhibition the 
most perfect and satisfactory exhibition, alike to the exhib- 
itor and public which has yet been held. Thatis our aim and 
we do not mean to fall short of it, 
It seems that I have oyerlooked the thanks due to you for 
the manner in which you have treated the National Breeder's 
Dog Show, and which was the initial object of this letter; allow 
me therefore to express to you my most sincere thanks for 
your most valuable assistance. Without that our present 
success could not have been attained; that 1s beyond question, 
therefore take as muchas you like of the credit, and I am will- 
ing to give you all if you wish. 
y the time the Formsr anp StreAmis out on Thursday 
morning, our three hundred odd dogs will be safely benched 
and the judging in progress, AJ] the awards will be made on 
the first day, so that those who wish to see the judging can 
govern themselves accordingly. For those who prefer Friday 
there is a treat in store. I do not think it is any breach of con- 
fidence on my part to say that a well known Philadelphia gen- 
tleman, who never does things by halves, proposes to receive” 
the visiting exhibitors, Judges and others. On that score I 
need say no more. JAMES WATSON, Secretary. 
PHILADELPHIA, Oct, 14. 
DOG SHOW. 
RETRIEVING WOODCOCK. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
Thaye a young Llewellin setter, about seventeen months 
old. Ihave worked him a little on woodcock, and have killed 
about forty birds over him, but have been unable to make him 
pick one up to retrieve. He will point them and hunt them as 
well as any old dog, and when birds fall he will find them and 
mouth over them as if he was chewing them all to pieces, but 
he has never bitten one at all. Please let me know how he 
can be made to retrieve them. He will bring a ball or a paper 
or anything like that which you throw out, but he seems to 
have an wnconquerable dislike to pick the woodcock up. I 
have forced them into his mouth, but he rejects them in- 
stantly when | withdraw my hand. I have had other dogs 
take a bird from right under his nose, but all to no purpose. 
The dog is not naturally timid or obstinate, and in other 
things I can easily manage him, I have looked in several 
works on dog breaking without finding anything that would 
aid me, and I would like yery much to have your advice. 
[Many dogs appear to have a strong dislike to the taste of 
woodcock, and itis often quite a task to make them retrieve 
them, 1€ our cotrespondent will study ‘Training vs. Break- 
ing” he will perhaps obtain information that will be of use to 
him, We would advise that for the present no attempt be 
made to bhaye him retrieve, and that he should not be allowed 
to mouth them. If a brace of dogs are used let the other ona 
