FOREST AND • STREAM, 
[June 2% 18W. 
order that he really recognized a portrait, or that he con- 
sidered the portrait as being his master in his own proper 
person. If he mistook the portrait for his master, he 
simply betrayed stupidity; for the skill of the artist de- 
ceived the dog. In other words, the dog did not recog- 
nize any portrait; he recognized only his master himself 
from a false cognition." 
Then a dog can cognize not only objective but also sub- 
jective things— a fact for the cognition of which by man 
I have made a hard fight through the years — to me a fight 
of love — something which A Posteriori, with the keenness 
of perception which is evidently his, cognizes perfectly; 
for earlier in the letter under consideration he says: 
"There iB no doubt but what the dog is a keen observer 
of emotion." The very fact that the dog could make "a 
false cognition" is all the evidence necessary that he has 
the power of cognition — cognition of a portrait as well as 
of a man. Suppose that he was deceived — that shows his 
"stupidity" no more than the stupidity of the artist was 
shown by his trying to fleck a fly from his painting, 
which fly had been painted there while he was out, by a 
brother artist. The very attempt of the highest order of 
artist is to deceive the observer. Could he produce a por- 
trait that would be mistaken for its original, his fortune 
would be made, and he would be unable to sleep for joy; 
might be killed by it, if joy ever does kill. 
But A Posteriori's objection is not well taken, from the 
fact that Tiger did know the difference between the por- 
trait of his master and that master. This is abundantly 
proven by the fact that he, when the master spoke, 
though he weighs 1051bs., jumped upon the master and 
fondled him. 
Did Tiger again look at the portrait in the presence of 
his master? If he did, he knew that it was not his mas- 
ter. Suppose that master away, might not then the por- 
trait bring the master to Tiger's mind, as it might bring 
the husband to the wife's mind ? 
I might go on drawing inferences. But notwithstand- 
ing philosophy — and the same is largely true of science — 
is builded upon inferences, there are those — of whom A 
Posteriori is not one — who are always dodging behind the 
statement that one has no right to draw an inference. 
Noc drawing inferences, then, I think that Tiger clearly 
knew the difference between his master and that master's 
portrait — a statement which I repeat, because it is the 
point at issue. 
I think that A Posteriori is mistaken when he says that 
bis mongrel bull terrier did not cognize or recognize him- 
self in the reflection in the mirror. What are the facts ? 
When he saw the reflection he made for it. When he 
came, physically or mentally, in contact with the glass, 
he passed ar<jund the obstruction. When he found no 
dog back of the mirror he was abashed. Abashed at 
what? At "being the subject," as A Posteriori says, "of 
much amusement. Yes, he had made a fool of himself. 
He knew it. How ? I would say by discovering that he 
had made an attack upon a reflection of himself. This 
could have been easily established by placing the mirror 
in other positions. The child, first seeing the reflection 
of itself in a mirror, thinks that reflection another child; 
but it comes to know that it is a reflection, and a reflec- 
tion of itself. And the same thing seems to me quite cer- 
tain in the case of the dog. Charles Josiah Adams. 
29 Lafayette Place, New York City. 
The Age of Kennel Progress. 
Newark, N. J. — Editor Forest and Stream: The dog 
which ate glass bottles and other forms of bright delica- 
tessen had his day, as every other dog is said to have. He 
did very well as a remarkable dog of the age in which he 
lived. Following the glass bottle age of the dog came the 
iron ramrod age, for at that period in the annals of dog his- 
tory is recounted the doings of the dog which ate the iron 
ramrod. The iron rod was too straight and too refractory 
for even the digestive organs of a dog which played no 
favorites in the way of diet. Still, once in his stomach, 
the control of the ramrod ceased so far as the volition of 
the dog had any importance. 
Then, so the story goes, the ramrod worked its way per- 
pendicularly through the dog's back, and so firmly set 
was it that it was impossible to work it forward or back. 
It was the cause of a thousand misfortunes to the dog, and, 
were his constitution other than the best or his digestive 
organs other than the toughest and firmest, he would 
either have been killed outright or died from a weaken- 
ing of his vital forces. 
A learned veterinarian, who attempted to treat him 
said that so long as the diastole of his bones was not 
affected, the etiology of the case would be in a state of 
inertia, and that therefore the dog should be fed on solid 
food. 
Often, in chasing intrusive dogs from this master's coun- 
try premises, they would escape by running under a rail 
fence, when in pursuit the guardian dog's iron dorsal 
spine would catch, bringing the dog up with a most cruel 
wrench, or when his momentum was greater, ripping the 
bottom of the fence out. His comfort, too, was abridged, 
for the measure of his enjoyment under the kitchen stove 
in winter was the length of his body up to the ramrod. 
After warming his head and shoulders to his satisfaction 
he would turn about back under the stove as far as the 
ramrod would permit, and thus maintain an equal tem- 
perature to his body. I consider this one of the most 
striking proofs of the dog's powers of cognition and re- 
flection, and I commend it to the attention of your read- 
ers who are -interested in comparative psychology. Of 
course, it cut off the dog's privileges as a pet or lap dog, 
for no one cared to have a dog jumping about him with 
an iron ramrod in his back. 
After the dog's death a post-mortem showed that the 
ramrod had, in working its way out, penetrated the heart 
and both lungs of the dog, yet the pathological symptoms 
were normal at all times of the dog's life. And yet again 
it was remarkable only for its time and place in history. 
And now comes the true story of one Gladyss III. 
owned by Col. Cornwall Leigh, which swallowed a 
wooden skewer 4^in. in length in 1894, which forced its 
way out between the ribs of the bitch on June 3, 1896. 
In the meantime the bitch worked afield to her owner's 
satisfaction, attended to the duties of maternity without 
any annoyance, save that she seemed to get out of con- 
dition and was in a decline. So up to the present time 
there is the bottle dog, the ramrod dog and the skewer 
dog in the annals of the kennel world. One swallow does 
not make a summer, but it makes a dog famous. 
Truthful James. 
SANCHO. 
A dog? Ah, yes. He knew it well, 
And yet his dignity ne'er fell 
To currish trick or idle growl, 
Nor did he ever deign to howl. 
A bark had he for every mood, 
And we who knew him understood. 
Our friends were his for fourteen years. 
He sleeps where flowers distill their tears. 
Maple Corner, Willington, Conn., June 4. Annie A. Preston. 
[Mrs. Preston writes: "Our dear little pet beagle Sancho died the 
other day. I want another nice dog. Do they ever give away pup- 
pies at any of the kennels ? I cannot afford to buy a dog, but we 
would take the best of care of one. We are very fond of pets "J 
ALL-AGED STAKES AND FIRST 
PRIZE WINNERS. 
The origin of the new rule of the U. S. F. T. Club, 
which practically gives the all-aged stake the unlimited 
competition of a free-for-all, is in a very small beginning 
and has a very small following in the way of supporters. 
As is well known among sportsmen, the United States 
Field Trial Club, at its meeting held at West Point, Feb- 
ruary, this year, enlarged its ruling concerning the eligi- 
bility of first prize winners. After a dog had won one 
first prize, under the old ruling, he was ineligible to 
further competition in the all-aged stake of the CJ, S. F. 
T. C. Incidentally it may be mentioned that such is the 
ruling of all other clubs, and such it has been for many 
years. Under the new ruling dogs are eligible to com- 
pete in the all-aged stake of the U. S. F. T. C. till such 
times as they have won two first prizes in all-aged stakes. 
As it was possible that the club, on sober second 
thought, might reconsider its ruling on the matter under 
consideration, as had been done previously by another 
club, criticism of the new ruling was deferred by us in 
the hope that the club would perceive and rectify its error. 
Indeed, it is not too late for it to do so now. That it is a 
harmful ruling as it stands, and is a perversion of the pur- 
poses of field trials, it is not a difficult matter to show. 
Our criticism is directed against it as an error of judgment 
on the part of the club. 
There was no popular sentiment in favor of the new 
ruling. In fact, the whole movement in favor of letting 
down the bars to all-aged winners was the outcome of 
the personal advocacy of Mr. J. M. Avent, in his efforts 
to improve field trials. To change the old ruling so that 
first prize winners would have greater opportunities in 
the competition was a pet measure of Mr. Avent's, which 
he advocated as early as 1898. His first attempts were 
failures. However, in 1894 he met with better success. He 
was the leader in inducing the Manitoba Field Trials Club 
to rule that dogs were not ineligible to the club's all-aged^ 
stakes till they had won two firsts in all-aged stakes, Mr. 
Avent being a member of that club. But that club, the 
following year, before its entries closed, rescinded the 
new rule and returned to the old one. 
In 1895, at the February meeting of the U. S. F. T. C, 
Mr. Avent advocated the changing of the old rule so that 
it would permit dogs to have two wins in all-aged stakes 
before they were ineligible in such stakes. There was 
such a strong opposition against the proposed change, 
notably from old and new members alike, that the 
attempt apparently was given up; however, it was so in 
appearance only. 
Under more favorable conditions, at the February meet- 
ing of the U, S. F. T. C. this year, Mr, Avent's long-pend- 
ing measure for the betterment of first prize winners was 
adopted, so that now under the U. S. F. T. Club's rules 
dogs are eligible to compete in that club's all-aged stake 
till they have won twice in all-aged stakes. Thus the 
measure, which had no adherents of any note in 1893 save 
Mr Avent, received the U. S. Club's approval in 1896 and 
was adopted by it. It was thus largely a personal meas- 
ure throughout. It was legislation in favor of the few 
who owned first prize winners, for it gave the owners of 
such winners a great, an inestimable advantage over those 
who did not own first' prize winners, in that it gave dogs 
of known excellence an opportunity to compete on even 
terms with green dogs. It practically removed all pro- 
tection from the stake. As hereinbefore mentioned, 
there was no popular sentiment to support such a change 
in the ruling. It was simply an object leBson in respect 
to the incompatibility of the professional's private in- 
terests and his duties as a club member, This is a matter 
of interest to all those who have the welfare of field trials 
at heart or a sense of fair play in matters of field trial 
competition. 
The First Prize Winner. 
The matter of first prize winners in competition engaged 
the attention of field trial clubs when they were compar- 
atively in their infancy. It was found necessary, even in 
that early day, to make a dog ineligible to further com- 
petition in an all-aged stake after his first win in it. The 
success of field trials made the limitation of the all-aged 
winner's competition absolutely necessay. This, contrary 
to the argument of a very small minority, inflicted no 
hardship on the first prize winner, for the reason that he 
had his opportunity to exhibit his high capabilities in 
public competition; the utmost publicity is given to his 
merits; he is conceded the honors of victory won with some 
material prizes worthy of consideration, and his fame 
lives on in the records through future ages. The well- 
known competitive capabilities of a first prize winner, if 
there were no restrictions on his competition, would 
result in owners keeping their dogs out of all-aged stakes 
in which such first prize winners were entered. It re- 
quired but a few years of field trial experience to con- 
vince field trial managers that the winnings of a dog in 
competition in an all-aged stake should be limited to one. 
As the years passed and field trials multiplied the list of 
all-aged winners constantly increased. If they were per- 
mitted to compete in the all-aged stakes it would decrease 
the entries to a serious extent, for no man of sense would 
care to enter a green dog against a number of dogs of 
approved merit in competition. To relieve the strain 
thus produced, the champion stake was inaugurated. 
While the first prize winners were always reasonably cer- 
tain to appear in the all-aged stake when there was an 
opportunity to do so, thpy never manifested any great 
craving for competition with each other. Very few cham- 
pion stakes have been a success from the financial stand- 
point of the field trial clubs which gave them. 
As time passed, there came many changes in field trial 
matters. Clubs have come into being and after more or 
less success have passed away. The personnel of the few 
remaining clubs which have survived from the beginning 
has greatly changed, and there are still greater changes 
in the different managements. As time passed, the old 
lessons were more or less forgotten and history has made 
an attempt to repeat itself; for with the passage of time 
the old field trial troubles and their causes were left in the 
past beyond the knowledge of the newer comers or were 
forgotten or disregarded by those who should have re- 
membered them. 
What are Field Trials for? 
In considering what field trials are for, it may not be out 
of place to consider what they are not for, in so far as 
they are not an institution for the purpose solely of creat- 
ing a revenue. The revenue for their support and the 
prestige which gives them respect from the world at large 
comes from the sportsmen who band together into field 
trial clubs. Aside from the pleasure of annual reunion 
and the satisfaction in promoting a sport in which they 
are enthusiastic, they derive no othev return from their 
expenditure and their efforts. If any man were to ask 
Buch club members to so arrange the club's stakes that the 
latter would be for revenue purely, and not for sport and 
the improvement of the dog, there is no uncertainty as to 
the answer. But the same thing is brought about in effect 
by evasion and false issues. In pleading the needs of the 
first prize winner for further competition, it is set forth 
that a good dog after he has won first in an all-aged stake 
is practically of no further use to his owner, and that his 
owner thus suffers a hardship in not being able to run such 
winner in the field trials and have a chance at the club's 
money. In other words, their dogs' merits having already 
been determined by competition, yet they ask that thev - 
be permitted to make the trials a means of revenue. It 
is also an admission that the owner has no personal use 
for his dog apart from trials. 
Furthermore, it has been advanced that there are own- 
ers of first prize winners who brag exceedingly of their 
dogs' merits, and who profess great anxiety to compete in 
field trials, and plead that they cannot do so under the 
restrictions. As to who these parties are, there is an ab- 
sence of statement in good keeping with the feebleness of 
the argument and its juvenile nature. Were it not ad- 
vanced by one who poses as an advocate of the best inter- 
ests of field trials, it would be undeserving of serious 
answer. 
First of all, in respect to field trials, the first prize win- 
ner has no further claim whatever on an all-aged stake. 
He has derived all the benefits of honor and record by one 
or more wins, so that so far as the public is concerned his 
further winning would determine nothing. His further 
running in an all-aged stake would be a run for revenue. 
In furnishing a dog a means by competition to establish 
his merit the club serves a public purpose. The club 
should not be expected to abandon its mission, the general 
improvement of the dog, and divert its money and efforts 
to maintaining a revenue for the dogs which have already 
gotten out of field trials all that they are entitled to. If 
the owner is not satisfied that his dog has demonstrated 
his merit to a satisfactory degree, he has the champion 
stake at his service. 
Stripped of all sophisms and subterfuges, the opening 
of the all-aged stake to first prize winners is making the 
stake a source of revenue to the first prize winners. As 
concerns the boaster afore-mentioned, field trials are not 
run with reference to silencing boasters, for men can 
boast regardless of field trials or their doings, and if the 
man who has a winner has not a right to feel proud of it, 
then when should he have the right? 
Let us now consider what a field trial club is for. The 
club gives prizes of sufficient value to reward the efforts 
of the contestants and give the competition value. The 
competition is conducted under established rules and set 
forms. The judges are selected with a view to their skill- 
fulness and their fame and reliability. The club gives the 
competition prestige, and all these different factors give 
the wins a value in the records and gain the esteem of the 
public. 
The life of a dog is short. So soon do dogs pass away 
that constant effort is necessary to keep up the standard 
of perfection or the nearest ^hich we have to it. As the 
best dogs of this year are brought out and. receive the 
stamp of approval by being awarded the first prize and 
honors in a competition, the mission of the club, so far as 
the best dog of the year is concerned, is done. The dogs 
of next year will require the same attention, for the dogs 
of this year will soon pass away, as will the dogs of next 
year in their turn pass away. If the best standards are 
kept before the public, there must be unceasing effort 
from year to year. If from putting unnecessary obstaoles 
in the way of owners their efforts are lessened or they 
cease all effort, the general good suffers accordingly. As 
to the winners other than first, it may be asked why they 
are not barred too, as the same remarks might in a way be 
said to apply to them. In reply, the public never has 
made any objection to them that required that they should 
be barred. The ruling of all clubs never dealt with the 
second prize and other winners as being objectionable in 
the sense of a first prize winner. The second prize win- 
ner is short of the honor that all really desire, and the full 
benefits of the all-aged stake are not obtained till the first 
prize is won. On the' contrary, the first prize winner has 
derived all the benefit from the all-aged, stake that it pos- 
sesses. Further competition could place him no higher — 
it would simply add to the number of his wins; the degree 
would be no different. 
But in considering the first prize winner as if he were 
an individual dog, it is well to consider that there are a 
great many first prize winners. 
It is commonly held that there is a great element of 
chance in a field trial competition. There is an element 
of chance as between dogs of equal or nearly equal merit; 
but when the bars are thrown down to the first prize 
winners the element of chance is entirely eliminated. 
The records will show that certain dogs have won a place 
in almost every trial in which they ever competed. As 
there are three or four great trials every year, affording 
a dog an opportunity to compete in three or four all-aged 
stakes, there is ample opportunity to display his merit. 
In these trials it is not an uncommon happening that two 
or three different dogs are placed somewhere in the 
money at every one of these trials. If they were permit- 
ted to compete till old age supervened, it is easily apparent 
that they would drive untried dogs out of the competi- 
tion. The fact that they would drive out the untried 
dogs is proof in itself that the winning dogs have demon- 
strated to public satisfaction all that the trials were in- 
