June 30, 1887.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



497 



AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB METHODS. 



Editor ForcM and Strrmn: 



It is to be hoped that out of all the recent discussi on of the 

 Beaufort-Patti M. case some good will arise. The last decis- 

 ion was a piece of nonsense; there is no reason for discussion 

 on that point, although lots of people may he of a contrary 

 opinion. Mr. Drake in his letter says there are many extenu- 

 ating circumstances, giving as reasons that the faux pan was 

 committed by the proxies and newly-elected delegates, and 

 that some of those who voted knew nothing of the case. 

 Well, certainly, the principal movers in the reopening of the 

 case can't make that plea. They at least fully understood 

 all about the matter in all its bearings, for it was thoroughly 

 discussed at the December meeting, and they must certainly 

 have known that the New Jersey club would have taken 

 their decision then given as final, and have paid over the 

 money according to that verdict. It certainly is not a miti- 

 gating circumstance that the mol ion to reconsider was made 

 by Vredenburgh. who at the last meeting was not entitled to 

 vote, and a stickler for propriety would hardly indorse the 

 making of Mr. Hanna a sub-proxy for Mr. Munhall. How 

 can a proxy delegate his powers? I am informed that Mr. 

 Elliot Smith ruled that there would be no objection to Mr. 

 Munhall appointing Mr. Hanna as sub-proxy. But surely 

 Mr, Smith's approval was not the only necessary thing. It 

 would appear - to me that the one who appointed Mr. Mun- 

 hall as proxy was the one to be consulted. He might have 

 been satisfied with Mr. Munhall, but how does the latter 

 know that his shifting of his responsibilities on to the 

 shoulders of Mr. Hanna was satisfactory? However, these 

 are merely incidents in the main folly, and as such are not of 

 the importance that the definite settlement of the case is. 

 For this certainly is a matter of importance. The American 

 Kennel Club has made plenty of mistakes before, but prob- 

 ably none of such colossal stupidity as this, the latest. 



There are some people who only look at things superficially 

 and therefore imagine it is a great deal of fuss about a small 

 matter. But the fact of the matter is that the American 

 Kennel Club has reached a point at which it either has to 

 get itself on a business basis and act out the purpose for 

 which it only has a reason for existence, or it can go on 

 blundering and lose the respect of decent men and practically 

 fall to pieces. It is a critical period in the history of dog 

 shows in this country. We have arrived at a time when 

 thoughtful men see that if dog shows are to be successful in 

 this country, there not only must be a rigid code, for their 

 government, but a court capable of interpreting the code 

 and enforcing its articles upon all. no matter who they be. 

 If this does not take place there will still be dog shows, but 

 a very large portion, and that the most respectable portion, 

 of the breeders of the country, -will not exhibit. Entries will 

 be poor and receipts light, and the public, that only now is 

 just beginning to support dog shows with its entrance 

 money, will come to look upon dog shows and dog men with 

 suspicion and disgust, and support them not at all. We can 

 not have an autocratic body in this country, like the Eng- 

 lish Kennel Club. It must be a representative body, and in 

 all such abuses are liable to creep in if the men elected do 

 not act in good faith and with regard for justice. 



It seems to me that the A. K. C. does not know what 

 its functions are; in its deeds it cannot separate the act from 

 the man. If he is "one of us" the severest thing that can 

 be done is a mild censure. It appears to be afraid of hand- 

 ling anything without the gloves lest it should hurt the feel- 

 ings of some one. Why did it take no action upon the Pitts- 

 burgh pewter medal business? I am informed the reason 

 w r as because there was no special article in the rules that it 

 could act under. And yet the president of that society is a 

 lawyer. Could he not help them out of the difficulty they 

 were in of not being able to find some mode of action? If it 

 could do nothing else, could the A. K. C. not have placed 

 itself on record as being opposed to such practices, even if 

 indulged in by one of the members of the association? Let 

 us have done with child's play. In the Beaufort — Patti M. 

 case there are two courses open by which the A. K. C. can 

 right itself. The proper way is for a declaration to be made 

 that the action of the last meeting was illegal and the de- 

 cision rendered null and void on the ground that the mover 

 of the resolution was not entitled to vote at that meeting, 

 and further, that a decision on the case having been filed last 

 December it was out of the power of the A. K. C. to reverse 

 that decision, its action in its capacity of appellate court 

 necessarily being final. Judging from the past it is not 

 likely that the A. K. C. will take that course, although it is 

 the most manly one. 



The other course is for it to speedily act upon Mr. Drake's 

 motion to reconsider, and let it do the crawfish act. The 

 new constitution and rules do not take effect until Septem- 

 ber 1, and under the old rules this method of doing business 

 by correspondence is yet permissible, and Mr. Drake's motion 

 is in order. If it will straighten out this case by either of 

 the above two methods there is yet hope for belief that in the 

 future the follies of the past may not be repeated, and that 

 affairs will be conducted upon a sounder basis than they 

 have been. 



As long as the central governing body is lax in its methods 

 the clubs composing that body will not be less so in the 

 management of their shows. In Forest and Stream for 

 June 16, Mr. James Watson furnishes a list of seventeen 

 entries, at the Newark show alone, which were incomplete 

 and upon which that club should have taken some action. 

 No action was taken because so much of this kind of care- 

 lessness exists that much is not thought of it. These 

 errors are as they appear in the catalogue, and it 

 is possible the blanks as filled out by exhibitors may ba with- 

 out the errors. I suggest this as I appear as one of the 

 guilty parties, the date of birth of Wacouta Rose having 

 been "omitted, and I remember at subsequent shows to have 

 saen errors in the catalogue that I am positive were not com- 

 mitted by me on the entry blanks. The unreliability of show 

 catalogues is so notorious that no exhibitor would turn to 

 one to settle any disputed question as to names or dates. 

 This should not be so. It is now time for a change ; let us 

 hope that after the A. K. C. has squared its record, a new 

 start may be made and in future a more rigorous enforcement 

 of the rules be had, so that the bench shows of the next sea- 

 son will be carried on upon a less slipshod method than here- 

 tofore, Wacouta. 



St. Paul, Minn. 



Editor ForcM and Stream: 



Surely Mr. Peshall wrote without due reflection when he 

 said that, the A. K. C. should never have original jurisdiction. 

 If this were the rule how could a member be disciplined for 

 any wrong, however glaring ? In the case quoted by Mr. 

 Peshall I think he is right. Ordinary offenses should first 

 be published by the club concerned, and then the A. K. C. 

 give its final on the subject, but to restrict its jurisdiction 

 exclusively to hearing cases on appeal would often be a flat 

 denial of justice. Nor is it correct that the A. K. C. should 

 not take cognizance of wrongs unless committed at shows of 

 their members. This should be the practice but not the 

 rule. Suppose some glaring fraud, some vile outrage had 

 been committed at the Buffalo show; should the perpetrator 

 go free because the Buffalo show was not held by a member 

 of the A. K. C? 



On this general point I have always admired Mr. Elliot 

 Smith's famous "opinion" on the Perry disqualification. He 

 took the ground that while it would appear proper that only 

 the club at whose show the wrong occurred should disqual- 

 ify, yet in the newness and rawness of dog show precedents, 

 and the danger that local influences might operate to the 

 detriment of justice, it was not safe to trust to this, and 

 therefore he voted to sustain the 'principle that one club 



might disqualify for a wroug committed at the show of an- 

 other club; and in spite of "Porcupine," I maintain that 

 this was one of the soundest, clearest decisions ever given in 

 connection with the A. K. C. It puzzles me, however, to 

 understand how Mr. Smith subsequently decided or allowed 

 that the secretary, without a proxy or authority to act for 

 anybody, could move a reconsideration of previous action of 

 his, when he was duly clothed with power as a proxy. 



I cannot agree with Mr. Watson's reasoning as to a dog's 

 being disqualified because one of the identification items re- 

 quired is not given. Sufficient must be given to clearly 

 identify the dog, and none must be of the deceptive charac- 

 ter that "full pedigree" involves. But suppose there is an 

 uncertainty as to some item, say whether Jones or Smith 

 was the breeder, you cannot say that the breeder is "un- 

 known," for that involves that nothing is known of him, 

 while the only question in doubt is, which of the two was 

 the breeder? Or it may be uncertain which of two names 

 of the dog's sire was the correct one, we know that it was 

 both Tom and Jack. Can we say it is "unknown?" And 

 further, does not the leaving of one item unstated imply an 

 uncertainty as to what it should be stated as? 



After prescribing the "musts" required for identification, 

 the rule says, "Otherwise it must be entered as 'pedigree un- 

 known.' " If the name of breeder is not given, it must be 

 entered as "pedigree unknown." The ruleis stupidly vague, 

 and Mr. Watson makes the mistake of applying, with Dra- 

 conian severity, an indefinite rule. This will not do. Strict 

 constructions can only apply to clear, unmistakable rules. 

 Nothing, however, except ignorance on the part of the user, 

 can excuse that stupid evasion "full pedigree." If used in 

 good faith, the requirements of the identification rule as to 

 sire and dam must be known to the user; therefore, why not 

 give them? If they are not knovn, then he cannot know 

 whether the dog has any pedigree. This piece of humbug is 

 a survival of the old ramshackle days of "good fellows," 

 humbugs, etc., that gave birth to pewter medals "100 cents 

 on the dollar," etc. I remember how astonished I was to 

 find my dog Tiny entered at Louisville as "full pedigree," 

 when Thad entered him as "pedigree not yet ascertained." 



Mr. Drake is hardly happy in his use of the word "exten- 

 uation" as applicable to the "back action" act; for those 

 who knew the history of the case, the full discussion that 

 had been had on it, and the final decision that had been 

 rendered, there can be no extenuation, For himself and 

 Mr. Newberi*y , new members, entirely fresh at the subject, 

 "extenuation" seems too strong a word, a mixture of excuse 

 and justification would seem nearer the mark. I am not 

 generally accused of being slow in "shooting off my mouth,' 

 but I confess had I been in the predicament described by Mr' 

 Drake I would have done as he did. Whether the answer to 

 the question "Is the A. K. C. to live?" will be affirmative or 

 negative, depends simply on backbone. The accession of 

 Messrs. Grosvenor, Seabury, Drake and Newberry, and Mr. 

 Child's shoes being so worthily filled, adds vastly to its 

 promise of usefulness, which, however, can only be fulfilled 

 by positive and decided action; squarely sitting down on a 

 few knaves or knavish actions will do more than all the 

 flapdoodle administered to it in the intervals of study of 

 "citrate iron and strychnine pills." W. Wade. 



Huiton, Pa., June 24. 



THE PEWTER MEDAL FRAUDS. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



The paragraph you published last week, taken from a 

 Pittsburgh paper, would seem to prove that Mr. Elben, the 

 secretary of the Pittsburgh Pewter Medal show, was made 

 of a composition "heavily plated" with brass. His state- 

 ment only occupies about twenty lines of type, yet almost 

 every line contains a falsehood. He admits that the medals 

 were not gold — but his catalogue says gold and silver, not 

 brass and pewter, medals were to be given — and he thinks it 

 all straight, because they did not say they were to be "solid" 

 gold, as they really contained a thin scale of gold on the sur- 

 face. The statement that "every person who buys a piece of 

 silverware in a jewelry store knows that he is not getting 

 solid silver unless he has made a request that the article be 

 sterling," on the face of it is so absurd that no one would 

 imagine that any but a fool would have made it. Mr. Elben 

 would imply that there was something that gave value in 

 the word "solid." When the United States mint issues a 

 gold coin it is not gold, then, unless it is publicly stated to 

 be "solid." If I call Mr. Elben a fool or something stronger, 

 it does not mean anything unless it reads a "solid" fool, and 

 for the sake of the libel law I will omit the word "solid." 

 So, too, when the catalogue stated that a special prize of 

 "one box fine cigars, value $10," was to be given for 

 the best mastiff, that . I, as the owner of the dog who 

 won this special, should not feel myself aggrieved 

 at finding them to be worth only $5, because 

 the catalogue did not say a "solid" $10 worth of 

 cigars, but merely a plain every day $10 worth, which, of 

 course, every smoker knows only means $5 worth. But in 

 justice to the donors of the cigars, let me say that I have 

 found that they stated the box was only worth $5 when they 

 gave it to the show authorities, and they marked on the box 

 $5, but this same secretary Elben raises the $5 to $10, but 

 considers it all right, as the word, the magic word "solid" 

 was not prefixed. Mr. Elben says he does not suppose "many 

 exhibitors melt their medals down. ' ' True, but medals from 

 other shows are worth keeping. The only one of this 

 season I have yet received is from Philadelphia, and that 

 is a handsome "solid" medal, a work of art, and it has a 

 genuine ring to it, so pronounced that one does not need to 

 r 'melt it down" to find what it is made of. It is only Pitts- 

 burgh medals that need that treatment. 



Here's a contradiction to Mr. Elben on the point that no 

 other show ever gave solid medals. We did right here in St. 

 Paul. It was not a "bench" show, as the dogs were not 

 benched; but it was a dog show, and held on our ice palace 

 grounds last February. We announced "gold and silver 

 medals," not "solid" gold and silver. There were some 

 thirty medals in all, and the gold ones were 22 carat gold, 

 and the silver were coin silver. What simpletons Mr. El- 

 ben must consider us to be, when, according to bis method, 

 and that which he claims to be the universal practice, all we 

 had to do was to promise gold and silver — omit the prefix 

 "solid" — and give three cents worth of composition. 



By the way, it might be interesting to know who were 

 the many that went to Mr. Elben and asked that they be 

 given medals instead of money. If this is true, does it not 

 prove that the other statements of Mr. Elben are not correct, 

 when he says, or implies, that people do not expect gold or 

 silver when it is so stated in the premium list — for who on 

 earth, who goes to the expense of sending a dog to a show, 

 at often large cost, would beg for a medal worth three cents 

 in place of money? Should any one prefer a medal to money 

 prizes (and exhibitors sometimes do so), they only do so 

 when they have reason to expect the medal to have some 

 artistic and genuine value, 



It is bad enough to get such a medal as I have, but it is 

 rubbing it in too much to have it followed by such an ex- 

 hibition of imbecility and mendacity as that put forth by 

 Mr. Elben in defense of the action of his club. It is a dis- 

 grace to the kennel world — the attempt to cover their own 

 iniquity by claiming that all others do the same. After this 

 public statement I think it right that all other kennel clubs 

 put themselves publicly on record as to the kind of medals 

 they gave when they announced gold or silver. WACOUTA. 



St. Paul, Minn. 



Write UJpthegrove & MoLeluan, Valparaiso, Ind., for new 

 catalogue of sportsmen's and civil engineers' wear.— Atfv, 



NON-SPORTING SPANIELS. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



Is there no one among all the judges, breeders, exhibitors 

 and lovers of the "crocodile cocker" whois willing to take up 

 his pen in defense of his pet ? Here I should say was a good 

 chance for Mr. Mason, but I hardly think he could demolish 

 "Uncle Dick" as easily as he has the most of his opponents, 

 for Mr. Fellows is clearly in the right, and I for one wish to 

 indorse all he says in your issue of May 5, and I take this 

 opportunity of publicly thanking him for sending me such a 

 fine and workmanlike brace of spaniels. Although but eight 

 months old when I received them last September they re- 

 quired but little training; in fact did good work the first 

 time I had them afield. It would astonish Eastern sports- 

 men were I to tell them how many woodcock and ruffed 

 grouse I had killed over them or how many ducks they have 

 retrieved. They once brought me a swan against a head 

 wind for at least an eighth of a mile. They also, when only 

 eleven months old, tracked and held at bay two wounded 

 deer. No mud is too deep nor day too long for them. When 

 I ordered the pair I wrote: "I want no long-backed, short- 

 legged dog, but one that can work six days m the week and 

 then be ready for the next," and I am pleased that I can say 

 I got what I ordered. 



I once had a brace from New Hampshire; their sire and 

 dam were champions. They had very long bodies and very 

 short legs, but they were positively useless for the field, as 

 they had no ambition; snow or mud would stop them in fif- 

 teen minutes. I often used to wish I had left them at home. 

 I gave them away and one is now in the champion class, 

 having won three first prizes. At our show here the judge 

 gave all the prizes to the non-sporting dogs that I am almost 

 certain areaiseless afield. As Mr. Fellows says, the judges 

 are to blame, for I well remember the same judge at Cleve- 

 land in 1883 scored that king of cockers, Dandy, 94>-§' points, 

 which is nearly perfect; but Mr. Fellows writes iue that 

 Dandy would not be noticed now in craze for the non-sport- 

 ing spaniel, and strange as it may appear, Mr. Kirk, although 

 one of the committee that made the standard, was the first 

 to depart from it, and by so doing forced the "crocodile 

 cross" to the front. 



I did not exhibit my dogs here, as they stand 14in. at 

 shoulder and are only 30in. long; but I was told they could 

 not win under Mr. Kirk, especially if there were any dogs 

 from Canada on exhibition. 



Now the remedy for all this nonsense is field trials for 

 spaniels; let them be tested in the field, and mark my words 

 the working type will beat the "crocodile" type every time, 

 and the more he has of the Dachs-weazel-double-action-Skye 

 cross, the less will be his chance for a place. 



B. A. Osborne. 



Detroit, Mich, 



THE PEMBROKE DISQUALIFICATION. 



[copy] . 



BOSTON, June 6, 1887.— Mr. Cha*. D. Webber: Dear 

 Sir— In reply to your favor of May 31, we beg to in- 

 form you that we sustain the protest of Pembroke (by Mr. 

 H. W. Huntington), being shown in the open class when he 

 was a champion, and have disqualified the doe Pembroke 

 and request you to return the prize card. We take this 

 opportunity to say it is our decided opinion that the owner 

 and exhibitor ought to be responsible and notify the com- 

 mittee of any change in his dog's class preceding the show, 

 and hope the A. K. C. will make the rule positively so. We 

 have noted your attempt to throw the blame on the com- 

 mittee for not transferring the dog. But we think this un- 

 fair, because you positively knew your dog belonged in the 

 champion class, whereas we might have known (and ought 

 to by the rule) had we time to have examined [s/c] the reeord 

 of every dog during the rush of getting a show ready, which 

 we think is nearly impossible. We changed ev*y one we 

 noticed, and think the committee ought not to be responsible 

 for transfers. Very respectfully yours. 



Bench Show Committee, N. E. K. C. 



[copy.] 



New York, June 20, 1887.— New England Kennel Clvb : 

 Gentlemen—Yours stating Pembroke has been disqualified 

 received, and I inclose you, per your request, the prize card 

 which you desire returned. Your letter is somewhat com- 

 plicated in its construction, and do not in certain sentences 

 "catch on." However, permit me to say, at the time of mail- 

 ing the entry and fee I supposed so far as exhibitors was 

 concerned the transaction closed, providing same was cor- 

 rectly filled out, as mine was. I admit that my calling your 

 committee's attention to the additional win it would helped 

 you, but according to Rule 9, and especially Rule 22, it re- 

 mains with the local delegates of the club to examine entries 

 (the exhibitor not being called upon), which, as y T ou say, was 

 done in a number of cases you noticed, but unfortunately 

 for me Pembroke was overlooked, and you now ask the A. 

 K. C. to make the rule positively apply to the owner of 

 notifying any additional win, and in the meantime I must 

 accept the disqualification through errors. 1 sincerely STgret 

 the occurrence and trust that exhibitors have profited there- 

 by, and avoid trouble in the future, especially those contem- 

 plating going in the show business,"and can only add thaft 

 whatever dealings I may have with dog shows to come, will 

 be, "as I believe I have," according to the A. K. C. rules. 

 Very respectfully, Chas, D. Webber. 



JLTMBO. — A member of the Worcester Fur Company, of 

 Worcester t Mass., asks us to reprint, from our issue of Feb. 

 15, 1883, this account of the doings of the foxhound Jumbo. 

 The story comes from Oxford, Me., under date of Dec. 6, 1882: 

 "I will relate the experience of a party of five hunters (three 

 amateurs and two professionals) with their dogs, Jumbo, 

 Tassle-tail, and Diamond Dick. There having come about 

 six inches of snow upon the night of Nov. 29, we proposed to 

 give the dogs a run, and try our luck for a fox. At break 

 of day upon the morning of Dec. 1, we shouldered our guns 

 and started for the Highland Farm, a noted place for foxes 

 at this time of the year; we had no trouble in finding a fuesh 

 track. We cut loose the dogs, Jumbo going to the front 

 with music that would quicken the blood of the laziest fox 

 hunter that ever sat upon a stump waiting for his faithful 

 dog to drive a fox down his gun barrel. It was not many 

 minutes before reynard was upon his pins; taking a circle 

 across the little Androscoggin, he ran over a poplar ridge 

 with the dogs within forty rods of him; it was music to my 

 ears to hear them go; but pretty soon they were coming 

 back and we deployed for a shot. Lorenzo King, an old fox 

 hunter, sighted him first and stood as straight and as stiff 

 as a stump. When the fox was within ten rods Lorenzo's 

 gun went to his shoulder; the cap snapped; his gun hung 

 fire; and reynard went on his way to the next man, who 

 also was an old fox hunter, Wm. Heywood, of Pittsfield, N. 

 H. William stood by T an old brush fence, and the first thing 

 he saw, reynard was sitting up within six rods looking for 

 the dogs. William's gun went to his shoulder, his fingers 

 pressed first one and then the other of the triggers; but no 



fo. He looked and discovered that he had forgotten to cock 

 is gun. The fox seeing the moA'ement, skipped over the 

 fence, and went on his way to the next man. This was George 

 Edwards, an amateur, and the proprietor of Jumbo. George 

 saw the fox coming and was straightway taken with the 

 shakes; he afterward confessed that the fox looked as if it 

 was 30ft. long. Having a heavy charge in his gun, George 

 took hasty aim and pulled the trigger. There was a terrific 

 explosion. George turned two or three back somersaults, 

 picked Qiimself up and ]io]lered, 'I've got him!' hut upon 



