276 
FOREST "AND > STREAM. 
[Sept. 29, 18M. 
POINTS AND FLUSHES 
[By a Staff Correspondent.] 
Barring- All-Age Winners. 
The action of the Manitoba Field Trial Club at its recent 
meeting, in so amending its rules that any dog can win twice 
in All- Age stakes before becoming ineligible to competition 
in the club's future All- Age Stakes, was ill-advised and 
harmful. Prior to the recent amendment, the rule was that 
one win of a dog in the All- Age Stake of a recognized club, 
would be a bar to competition in the All-Age Stake of the 
Manitoba Club. 
The new rule opens the competition to all the first prize 
winners in the States and Canada. It is sure to detach 
much support from the club's trials, a support which comes 
from a class whose interest it should most earnestly en- 
deavor to permanently engage in field trials, namely, the 
owners of small kennels, the amateurs and the breeders. 
"With a rule so unfavorable to them, they will naturally hold 
aloof from the competition. 
The new rule greatly enlarges the scope of a dog's compe- 
tition, much more than is apparent on the surface. A dog 
may never win more than one first prize in an All- Age 
stake, though he may afterward be a sure second, third or 
fourth winner in such stake; thus he may be a deterrent 
factor in the competition year after year. 
Now supposing that there are four or five such winners in 
an All- Age stake, is it not a safe presumption that they 
would win every prize? It would be many years before all 
won first prizes again, and thus be rendered,ineligible; but if 
one became ineligible, there would be a number of new win- 
ners to take his place, or compete with him if he did not win, 
since all' the first prize winners in the States and Canada in 
the field trials this fall and winter, are eligible to compete 
in the Manitoba Club's All-Age Stake next year, as are also 
all the first prize winners of past years. 
If every winning dog were to win his two wins in succes- 
sion, it would require two trials to bar them, and at the 
same time there being four or five recognized contempor- 
aneous field trial events, there would be four or five new All- 
Age winners to compete in the place of the one which ig 
barred by a second win. The new rule practically throws 
the stake open to the world without restriction. 
Undoubtedly all the first prize winners in the States and 
Canada will not be present in the club's engagements, but it 
is quite probable that enough of them will enter to destroy 
the interest and support of the weaker professional and 
amateur. In that respect three or four first prize winners 
accomplish as much as a dozen. 
It is true also that even against the odds some unknown 
dog might beat the famous winning dogs in a stake, but also 
it should not be overlooked that such dog would be a deter- 
rent and disintegrating factor in the competition in the fol- 
lowing year. However, in respect to the unknown dog, the 
records do not support such argument very positively — 
therein the names of many dogs will be found many times 
repeat ed as winners in different events. 
Several of the club members, notably, I think, Messrs. 
Simpson, Wootton, Ellis and Avent, were strong advocates 
of the change and instrumental in bringing it about. The 
latter advanced the novel plea that, as the rule stood, some 
man who owned a winner of an All- Age stake could boast that 
his dog could beat everything in the country if he could but 
compete, but with an opportunity afforded him to compete 
again by removing the bar such boaster would be silenced. 
It is not very clear, however, who such boaster is, nor why 
the boasting of a mythical personage should have so much 
weight in the club's domestic affairs, or any importance at 
all, or even if the boasting personage were real, why the club 
should change a rule, founded on good sense and equity, to 
silence empty boasts. But accepting the plea as sincere, 
how could any rule, directly concerning the club's own 
affairs, silence the boastings of any one? A man can boast 
about his dog without running in a field trial once. To 
further the plea, let us assume, though it is far-fetched, that 
the rule would effectually sileuce such boaster, what effect 
has that then on the inherent equity of a field trial competi- 
tion? Again, is it worth while to have several boasters 
come in with winning dogs if by so doing they keep many 
more competitors out? But in making that plea concerning 
the boaster, the pleader forgot to mention that the new rule 
removed the bar from the boaster and he who does not boast; 
in shore, from all winners. In view of this I presume those 
who are not boasters, but own All-Age winners, will not 
attempt to run a second time. Who own the prize winners 
anyway? 
If the club starts out to so amend and add to its rules as 
hedge in or silence every boaster it will have a task indeed. 
Precedents. 
Are good precedents of value in this connection? Then 
there are the conditions of the stakes for many years past, 
enforced by the great field trial clubs of this country. Their 
rules, too, are specific and explicit on this matter. The older 
clubs have had occasion to consider and settle it years ago — 
but had all the members of those clubs owned first prize 
winners they might have ruled differently. Their rules at 
present are uniform on this subject. Each club recognizes 
the wins made under the auspices of the other clubs, and 
first prize All- Age winners are barred from All- Age stakes. 
If precedent is worth considering in relation to the subject, 
the uniform ruling of all the older and more experienced 
club members is worthy of careful consideration. There is 
plenty of precedent. One can safely infer that they found 
good reasons for introducing and maintaining the rule, and 
indeed it is not difficult to learn those reasons. 
After a dog has won an All- Age stake, he has achieved 
fame and prestige which, it may reasonably be assumed, are 
known throughout the sporting world, and will be a part of 
the permanent history of field trial competition. He will 
live in the traditions of sportsmen. If he has previously 
won a Derby, his fame is still greater. Such winnings are 
widely published in field trial reports, advertisements, circu- 
lars, private letters and orally. Thus the competitive 
powers of a winning dog become well known to all sports- 
men. 
If such winning dog were allowed to compete thereafter 
in an All-Age Stake, he would discourage many owners 
from making entries. No man cares to enter a competition 
unless he has a belief or a hope that there is a chance for 
iiini to win. Against untried competitors, there is a hope. 
Against a dog which has proved himself a formidable com- 
petitor, the owner may know that he has no chance of win- 
ning. With several formidable winners in the competition, 
many more owners would hold aloof. There are numerous 
such famous winners which are now eligible. 
There is no handicap at a field trial. The equity of the 
competition can only be imperfectly maintained by barring 
winners. In all other sports a handicap obtains. How many 
horsemen would enter their horses in one stake against 
Robert J. and against such other eminent competitors near 
his ability, with no handicap to equalize chances? In bicy- 
cling, running and other sports wnere large fields compete, 
the winner whose superiority is well known is handicapped. 
The only protection so far applied at field trials is barring 
the All- Age winner from All-Age events. 
Some clubs, to make an opportunity for the All- Age win- 
ner, have in the past made a champion or other stake in 
which such winner could run with his kind, but it was found 
i u most instances that he did not care to run under such con- 
ditions very much. He wanted something easy. Something 
like a cinch was better. The All- Age winners seemed to be 
afraid of each other. The man who boasted and the man 
who didn't looked askance on a champion stake. Winning 
such a stake was a small gain compared to the loss of repu- 
tation and value if defeated, and defeat meant less earnings 
of a dog in the stud. To prevent walkovers in the champion 
stake it was found necessary to make a condition that there 
must be a certain number of starters or the stake was off. 
Stripped of all sophistry, the new rule has a direct bearing 
in the interest of the great kennel owners who are better 
equipped in every way for competition than are their smaller 
brethren. It makes them still more formidable, as they own 
many winners or can control them, and can campaign their 
strings of dogs better and cheaper than can the small breed- 
ers, the amateurs and small owners. 
Instead of promoting Canadian interests in breeding and 
developing dogs, the managers of the Manitoba Club have 
multiplied the difficulties and discouragements which their 
home breeders must encounter. They are competing against 
kennels which represent the effort and expense of years of 
the best talent, while their own began comparatively much 
more recent, and with all the bars, they were competing 
against heavy odds. 
Lest I should be misunderstood, as I am quite sure I have 
been on related subjects which referred to amateurs and pro- 
fessionals, I will say that I am not writing against profession- 
als personally. My desire is to call attention to such features 
of the competition as are harmful to it. If professionalism 
has unduly absorbed too much field trial interest to the det- 
riment of the trials, the professional handler needs no argu- 
ment to make him realize that his own interests are 
correspondingly injured. If the field trials were strictly 
professional events, there would be no question then as to 
the relative standing of professional and amateur; but if 
field trials cannot live without the amateur — and it is gener- 
ally the amateur who puts up the purses— it might not be 
unwise to give him at least a peep for his money. 
It was said to me not long since by a professional handler 
that field trials could not be run without professional hand- 
lers. The statement was not quite precise, since trials could 
be run without them, but not so well as with them. But 
handlers should not for a moment overlook the fact that 
they could not run without field trials. Handlers and trials 
are mutually dependent on each other, with the somewhat 
unimportant distinction that to the club members the trials 
are largely a diversion or side matter, while to the profes- 
sional they are a means of livelihood. To determine just 
how much belongs to sport and how much to business is the 
field trial problem of the age in this age of trusts. Nothing 
herein is intended to be understood as advocating a bar 
against professional handlers. I believe the time will come, 
however, when they will have to be limited to one or two 
entries from a kennel. This does not mean that each hand- 
ler could have but one entry. He might have a dozen for 
that matter to handle in a trial, but they should be owned 
by six different owners at least. Such ruling would break 
up the strings which are campaigned for revenue. To insure 
that there is no deception, an affidavit of ownership should 
be required with every entry. 
Recognitions of Wins. 
In this connection it may not be amiss to consider the 
rulings of other clubs in respect to wins. In particular 
I will refer to the TJ. S. Field Trials Club, which might 
wisely cast its eagle eye on the competition in the All- Age 
Stake of the Manitoba Field Trials Club, at Morris, this year, 
for wins there are worthy of recognition. The TJ. S. F. T. C, 
in times of past, has exercised great forbearance in recogniz- 
ing Canadian wins, although the trainers went many hun- 
dred miles to participate, and famous dogs competed in 
Canadian stakes every year. 
The former club does not recognize the wins made in the 
trials of the Manitoba Club, but with this year's competition 
in evidence, it cannot consistently refuse to recognize them. 
A fixed principle should not be sacrificed for a little revenue. 
With a competition made up from the best kennels of the 
United States and Canada, there is no equitable reason why 
the wins of the Manitoba Club should not be recognized. 
The United States can show no more important competition 
than that in the All-Aged Stake of the Manitoba Club, 
namely, the Charlottesville Field Trial Kennels, the Blue 
Ridge Kennels, the Avent & Thayer Kennels, Mr. T. G. 
Davey's kennels, and others, and the handlers were the most 
expert and famous of America. 
The trials are not the small affair which they were some- 
time ago when a handler could scoop the whole pot with no 
penalty to the winner by a bar at the events in the States. 
I hope it is possible that the Manitoba Club may recon- 
sider its recent action in respect to All-Age winners. If they 
return to their recent ruling thereou, they may mildly dis- 
please a few, but may please many. B. Waters. 
Newburgh Dog Show. 
The small show held in connection with the Orange County 
Fair (N. Y.) seems to have been quite a success, as a number 
of well known dogs were present. There was no catalogue, 
so that a correct list of the awards was difficult to get at. 
The Mere Kennels exhibited Ripon Stormer and other fox- 
terriers. Mr. E. H. Morris had a string of winners in thirteen 
classes, and the Castle Point Kennels took the prizes for bull- 
terriers. Outside of these kennels the awards went to local 
dogs. The best English setter was J. S. Cleeves's Trouble. 
Best Irish setter, E. H. Morris's Dash. Best fox-terrier, Mere 
Kennels' Ripon Stormer. Best pug, Dr. A. V. Joy's Boodle. 
Best pointer bitch, A. Krom's Lass of Bang. Best great 
Dane, J. B. Miller's. Best Newfoundland, T. H. Rea's. Dr. 
Clover judged. 
DOG CHAT. 
In the awards at Antwerp International Exhibition we 
notice that a Diplome d'Honneur has been awarded to 
Spratt s Patent, Limited. 
Dr. C. A. Longest has sold the well known mastiff 
Emperor Maximilian to Mr. J. F. Stone of Columbus, O., at 
a good figure. 
We were sorry to hear that Mr. Comstock lost that good 
Irish terrier bitch Crate during the summer, as well as her 
eight pups by Valley Boxer. He purchased this bitch from 
Mr. G. R. Krehl when in England a couple of years ago, and 
she was considered one of the best on the bench. Mr. Com- 
stock intends vi&iting England in the near future, and will 
probably bring a couple of others over. 
During Toronto show Mr. C. E. Bunn, of Peoria, 111., pur- 
chased the well known mastiff bitch Cerenefrom the Wood- 
bury Kennels. This bitch, while by no means a flyer, is a 
very fair one when properly shown. She is by Minting, and 
although some breeders were disappointed with Minting as 
a sire, yet the fact remains that his daughters are about the 
best brood bitches we have, and this accounts for Mr.Bunn's 
anxiety to secure Cerene. She was mated with his Leam- 
ington during the show and the result should be entirely 
satisfactory. Mr Bunn has now four litters on hand, and 
six bitches have been bred, so there should be no dearth of 
mastiff stock in the land of the Whisky Trust. 
S[Mr. Joe Lewis, the beagle judge at the Rhode Island show, 
indorses our criticism on the placing of the winners in the 
open dog class by purchasing the second prize winner, Robin, 
before the show closed. He has a good beagle and one 
that will be useful to the breed as aBtud dog. As to Robin's 
hunting qualities we are not informed, but probably he will 
soon have to give an account of himself. We understand 
that Robin earned a stud fee or two before leaving for his 
new home and several "futures" were booked, so that it looks 
as if the purchase was a bargain, though $200 was the price 
asked. 
Mr. J. L. Winchell has been trying an experiment in breed 
ing back his Beaufort's Black Prince to one of his best 
daughters, and he has produced a litter of pups which are 
three-quarters champion Black Prince. The litter is a great 
success, as he thinks they are the best he has ever produced. 
"I think I have bred what has never been bred in America 
before — show bitches." 
Several letters and other matter are unavoidably deferred 
till next week, owing to the pressure on our columns this 
week. 
Mr. Bernheimer writes us that his Morey Kennels won the 
kennel prize for poodles at Toronto, and not the Woodbury 
Kennels, and that his Cigarette won third in open curly 
bitches, instead of Hill Hurst Dinah. We cannot understand 
this, as the records of these wins in the judge's book were as 
we published them. 
A most remarkable case, not to say outrageous abuse of 
power, was brought to light by the Providence Evening 
Telegram during the Rhode Island Fair show. On the 19th 
this journal published the following editorial, which gives 
the whole particulars — "Does the Crime Fit the Punish- 
ment?" "From Sept. 4 to Jan. 12 is a pretty long time for a 
poor man, the father of a family, to be in jail, leaving wife 
and children to beg or starve, when that man has been guilty 
of no more serious a crime than keeping an unlicensed dog. 
We have referred to this outrage in connection with the 
arrest of James J. Kelly by a so-called dog officer before, and 
we may have more to say about it. Kelly was sent to jail on 
Sept. 4 because he could not pay a fine and costs amounting 
to $27.05, of which $5 was the dog officer's share of the fine 
and inducement to the arrest. Dogs ought to be licensed. 
We do not object to that. A man who can't afford to 
pay can't afford to keep a dog, except in certain 
cases. But how an officer can afford to have a 
man sent to jail for four months because the man 
is too poor to put $5 into the officer's pocket we 
„o not see. To work out $27.05, Kelly has to stay at 
Cranston until he has "worked it" at the rate of twenty-five 
cents for each working day. Sundays and Christmas and 
Thanksgiving Day, think of that in this connection! are not 
working days. Probably election days don't count. Any 
way, the first two weeks in January will be gone before the 
man is out unless something is done for him. It is now 
too late to take an appeal, the only thing is for somebody 
to pay the man's fine. The Telegram is willing to help. It 
will give $5 for the dog officer's share. Are our readers ready 
to make up the balance?" 
This was brought to the notice of several fanciers and the 
suggestion was at once made that the dogmen subscribe the 
amount necessary to get the man out of jail. It was pro- 
posed to have a popular subscription of $1 each, and Dr. Foote 
and Mr. T. S. Bellin were not long in securing $51. In the 
meantime through the financial assistance of Mayor Olney 
and the intervention of Judge Wilbur, the man had been re- 
leased, so the money subscribed by the dogmen was turned 
over to James Kelley's family, which was destitute. The 
dogmen have a name for wrangling among themselves, 
famed more by exaggeration than reality, but no warmer- 
earted set of men exist, and the mutual love for a dog is an 
open sesame in the time of trouble. The citizens of Provi- 
dence are justly indignant over this affair. Had every man 
who has failed to pay his dog's fee been subjected to the 
same prosecution they might feel different, but that this 
poor man with a family depending upon his daily labor 
should have been singled out by the dog officer, has raised 
an amount of indignation against that individual that will 
make his name anything but an enviable one. This officer 
is probably perfectly satisfied with the outcome of his Shy- 
lock-like action, for the feelings of others cannot have much 
influence on such a man. 
There was almost a riot among the regulars during the 
closing hours of the Providence show on Friday evening. 
Orders were given by the President Mr. Perkins, that no dog 
was to leave the building until 10 P. M. Several handlers 
had been promised release, so that they could get home 
before Sunday. Mr. Roberts was between the devil and the 
deep sea, but he realized that if the "boys" were detained 
they would bear it in mind next year. Then there was the 
public to be considered, but they not having to pay ad- 
mission to the dog show would come again next year any 
how, and he did his best for the boys. But President 
Perkins was obdurate; Mr. Walter Comstock tried his per- 
suasive powers on the man at the helm but unsuccesef ully; 
Fred Kirby could not move him and the smooth, imploring 
plaint of Ben Lewis met with no responsive throb. Then the 
boys got down to business, signed a petition to the president 
setting forth that they would not show there again unless 
treated fairly in regard to this matter and all was over. 
The edict was repeated and the "boys" will win more money 
next year they hope. Still rules are rules and the show rule 
XI, says that no dog shall be removed until 10 o'clock on 
Friday night, Sept. 21, and therefore the management could 
not be blamed in the affair; still in a fair show when few 
people come at night to see anything but the fireworks, this 
rule might well be relaxed. 
On the last day of the show some home-made fox-hunting 
on the race track was arranged for. Dr. Thurber, as an 
intimation that his hounds are up with the game at every 
point, had a fox in a box, marked dangerous, hung over his 
pack in the show. This fox was taken to the track and 
walked around it and then the dogs were slipped. The 
crowd surged round and the dogs became excited; Tom 
Aldrich's hound Jowler, made a steady point and his owner 
"hied" him on but he held it staunch. The dogs were taken 
up, the fox boxed up and the hunt declared off. Nothing 
but trotters and money seem to go on that track. 
Stocli-Keeper (Eng.) gives Mr. Mortimer, in the issue of 
Aug. 31, a characteristic send-off on his departure for home. 
After enumerating the shows he attended, a description is 
given of the notable purchases Mr. Mortimer made. Speak- 
ing of King Crry, which accompanied Mr. Mortimer on the 
voyage, this journal says: "Of all his purchases this was, 
no doubt, the happiest and best timed, as the value of King 
Orry must have been nearly doubled by the death of Dock- 
leaf. There are excellent judges of the breed who believe 
that in parting with this specimen England is losing its most 
valuable stud dog. Orry's conspicuous point of excellence 
is the breadth of turn-up of underjaw; he has proved his 
excellence by a number of wins on the bench, scoring 
firsts at Brighton, Cruf t's, Bulldog Club, Birmingham, En- 
field, Romford, Nottingham, Portsmouth and Preston, where 
he secured also the 25-guinea and the 50-guinea challenge cups. 
He showed his soundness when he beat Dockleaf in the 
walking match, and among others the famous Facey Rom- 
ford and Storm Fiend, Burglar and Prince Orry may be 
adduced as evidence of his quality at stud. Of the four prize 
bull bitch purchases, Hucknall Gipsy, Grosvenor Lass, Miss 
Mischief and Enfield Vixen, the first-named went on in ad- 
vance with the schipperkes. Gipsey, before leaving, was 
served by Sir Garnet Wolseley; she is also a well-known win- 
ner, having won firsts at Preston, Bath and Bicester, Miss 
