566 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Deo. 92, 1894. 
but the fox was so hard pushed that he could not follow the 
usual beats, but was dodging in and out among the rocks, 
and was every few minutes saluted with, bang! bang! — gen- 
erally at a long range, so suffered no serious harm, and as 
he would approach near the plains we would hear a light 
whiff! from some farmer boy's squirrel gun. Then a cheer 
from the quarries would tell that he was passing in that 
vicinity. After remaining fully three-quarters of an hour 
at my stand, we broke at a regular fox hunter's lope for a 
point where we were sure that he was comine, but before he 
arrived, he. ran against Tom Anderson and "William Austin, 
of the Highgate Gun Club, who stopped him — and one of the 
first dogs to seize the dying fox was little lame Whirlwind. 
In a. few moments a crowd of hunters, farmers and quarry- 
men were on the spot, all anxious to tell their experience 
with the fox. 
Says the old veteran Cummings: "I can't understand why 
the deuce he didn't hole in the cave, he started for it half a 
dozen times." 
"If you had seen me," said Ryan, "stand there and pelt 
him away with stones you wouldn't ask that question. I 
believe I could have killed the beggar, but I was afraid to 
throw hard for fear of hitting some of the dogs." 
J T say, Jim," says one to a farmer boy, "ain't you afraid 
of straining that gun of vours? Why that fox was forty 
rods off when you pooped that squirrel squib at him." 
"Fred, confound you, if you'd have kept still I'd have got 
him, for he was coming straight toward me when you up 
and blazed away right and left, fully twenty-five rods off." 
"I didn't know that you was there, and he was headed 
toward the meadows and I wanted to turn him back, and I 
had in B.B.s and thought that I'd break a leg." 
"Headed towards the meadows," says Rogers; "he never 
would have gone out there for he knew that his only salva- 
tion lay in sticking to the rocks until he could get a chance 
to slip into the cave." "Begor-r" says a quarryman, as he 
came up with a rock in each fist, "that little three-ligged 
divil-of-a-hound took a turn out of the fox jist forninst me. 
I thought that the dog had two tails but whin the fox shuck 
him off I see it was one of his hind futs sticking out behind; 
thin that big black hound, and the spotted one made a run 
at him, (the fox) and he jist doubled on them and they 
bucked their two bids against a rock. I thought they were 
kilt, but they lit a roar out of themselves and up and away 
with the other dogs after the rid divil, who was scurrying 
off up the hill as fast as his four ligs could carry him." 
Says another one: "You know where that crack in the 
rocks is, south of the quarry, well sirs, the dogs were just 
catching him there at the bottom of the ledge when he 
slipped into the crack and up he went and out at the top, 
and the dogs had to climb up the steep rocks outside, and 
when that big speckled dog had got near the top, he slipped 
and down he went taking two or three of the other dogs 
with him clean to the bottom. " One Canadian pitched into 
a brother habitant as follows: 
"What for you, Mr. Peltier, go 'pish' wit dat leetle gun at 
de fox? He's off more dan tree acre." 
This brought on an animated discussion between the two 
men, and after a lot more of pleasant talk and chaff among 
the regular hunters, it was decided who should take the 
pelts, and also that we were not game hogs and had sport 
enough for one day. We declared the hunt ended and 
started for home in fine spirits, excepting poor Whirlwind, 
who had to be helped over every wall and ditch. It is not 
every day that fox es play as this one did. They very often, 
when they get a good lead on the dogs, lead off across the 
country for miles; then we rush for our teams and try to 
head them off at some distant runway. Several times we 
have made two kills, besides running others into the 
ground. 
The best dogs that we have ever seen for the hilly districts 
are a cross of rough-haired otter hound with the common 
foxhound. They seldom get footsore, are strong, and have 
a good nose; in fact, are the only hounds that we ever saw 
that would follow a fox over dry, plowed ground and glare 
ice, without any loss of time or break in their speed. 
Stanstead. 
Highgate, Vt., Dec. 17. 
Editing. 
Commodore Smith through the New York Herald of Dec. 23 comes 
to the defense of the new deed with the statement that no other than 
general charges of its unfairness have been made. In the course of 
his remarks he quotes the mutual' agreement clause, but judiciously 
ignores the very peremptory wording of the preceding clause. 
Of the specific objections repeatedly made, but of which Commo- 
dore Smith is ignorant, we need mention but two. According to a 
firmly established precedent of New York Y. C, as noted more fully 
on our editorial page, a holder cannot recognize a challenge which 
does not comply with the specific requirements laid nown in the deed 
of gift. According to Clause 5, such a challenge must contain four of 
the dimensions of the challenging yacht. The demand for these 
dimensions is unfair and unprecedented in yachting; no designer has 
ever heen compelled to reveal the draft of his yacht, or even to limit 
this draft, without the privilege of adding outside ballast if necessary 
on trial. That the New York Y. C. has, under stress, waived the 
demand for these dimension and repudiated this portion of Clause 5, 
tends of itself to prove the truth of the above charge, as repeatedly 
urged by us and others. 
Another specific charge of unfairness has been made against the 
"no time allowance" provision of Clause 7. Under this clause, In the 
case of Valkyrie and Vigilant, it was within the power of the New 
York Y. C, after all details, great and small, had apparently been 
agreed on, to have forced a disagreement on some immaterial pretext, 
leaving the challenger with no option but to claim his three outside 
races, hut without the two minutes'' time allowance due from Vigi- 
lant to her smaller opponent. Of course the New York Y. 0. would 
not lower itself by such an unfair trick, but foreign clubs might not 
be so scrupulous in the event of holding the Cup. 
The many published statements from prominent yachtsmen in 
various places would indicate a general acquiescence in all the actions 
of the Cup committee, but we know to a certainty that there is a very 
strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction, even within the New York 
Y. C. There are many yachtsmen who hesitate to openly condemn 
the new deed and the actions of the committee, but who at the same 
time are quite alive to the truth of the many charges made abroad 
and at home against both, charges which cannot be refuted and 
which reflect on the honor of the club. There are many who, when 
forced in argument to the defense of the new deed, make no stronger 
claim than that the second deed was inadequate and that some 
change had to be made, with the lame excuse that British yachtsmen 
would have done the same thing. While they admit the defects of 
the new deed, they cover their reluctance to the repudiation of it by 
the excuse that, the "surviving donor" being now dead, the club has 
no power to alter it, even if it wished. 
The New York Y. 0. has never yet failed to find a way of some kind 
to do anything which it wished concerning the America's Cup and it 
has twice exceeded its rights as trustee in altering the terms of the 
trust under a very doubtful pretext, and it is quite capable of doing 
so again if the necessity arose. We venture the assertion that if the 
New York Y. 0. were once finally convinced that the Royal Yacht 
Squadron and other British clubs would stand by their declaration 
that they would not challenge in any way under the new deed, that 
document would be destroyed in six months, and with at least as 
great a regard for legal forms as attended its birth. As long, how- 
ever, as the Squadron is willing to consider exceptions and conces- 
sions the new deed must stand. 
The most important point of difference between the first and third 
deeds of gift lies in the nature and position of the much discussed 
mutual agreement clause. In the original deed this clause takes pre- 
cedence of all other stipulations, and applies to all possible conditions 
of the match. In the third deed the mutual agreement clause, such 
as it is, occupies a subordinate position, following the stringent re- 
quirements laid down for a legal challenge; and it covers only the 
minor conditions of a race, as distinctly specified, and by a special 
provision, the time limit of ten months. 
We "notice that Mr. Kersey and some of the English authorities 
claim that the New York Y. C. has established a precedent and 
placed on record an interpretation of the mutual agreement clause, 
which must bar all attempts in the future to revive the demand for 
the four dimensions. We would call the attention of all who may he 
inclined to this view, as well as those who have accepted Gen. Paine's 
discovery of the marvelously elastic mutual agreement clause, to the 
plain and forcible wording of Clause 6: "The challenging club shall 
give ten months' notice in writing. Accompanying the ten months 1 
notice there must be sent the following dimensions: Length on load 
waterline, beam at load waterline and extreme beam, and draft of 
water." Under this wording the four dimensions must be given or 
the challenge cannot be legal; and these dimensions once given, there 
is no power given to the holder to "waive" them or to suffer any de- 
parture from them. The time of notice may, by a special provision, 
be changed by agreement, but the dimensions are on a totally differ- 
ent footing, they must be stated in the first letter of challenge, and 
must stand intact throughout the whole series of matches until the 
last one is sailed. 
Any one who may challenge, under the new deed, must face one of 
two disagreeable contingencies; if, like Lord Dunraven in 1892, he 
relies on the statements of the holder and gives but one dimension, he 
may, after winning the majority of races, be met with the perfectly 
valid objection, on the part of some member of the club holding the 
Cup,that his challenge was irregular and illegal, the holders having 
violated Clause 10 in failing to demand the specified dimensions. If, 
on the other hand, he should consent in his challenge to give these 
dimensions, he must look to it that, when his yacht is docked at New 
York and measured by the club measurer, she shall not differ by an 
inch, in draft, extreme beam, or beam at waterline, from the recorded 
figures; otherwise he may expect the same charges of foul play and 
deceit as were made against the Thistle party in 1887. 
The demand for the four dimensions also stands in the way of the 
partial offer of the Cup committee in the present case to recognize 
another yacht than that originally named; the club has no more right 
to do this than it has to consent to sail a race in November in the face 
of the express prohibition of Clause 6. 
The Meld of Dec. 20, comments as follows on the proposal to make 
new conditions under the mutual agreement clause: 
"We consider this course perfectly satisfactory; only the terms 
must be set forth precisely in the deed. The New York Y. C. ought 
to get legal opinion on the question whether their present liberal 
interpretation of the mutual agreement clause is allowable. As the 
case now stands, according to the New York Y. C., everything con- 
tained in the deed can be waived; in fact, the race can be arranged as 
if no deed existed. We feel sure that the mutual agreement clause 
never meant this. If it did two clubs could agree to race one-raters, 
and we could send the boat aboard a steamer across the ocean, or 
could even build it in the United States. The New York Y. C. should 
say authoritatively what they regard as allowable under this clause. 
Their interpretation can then be attached to the deed as suggestions 
short of destroying the deed, which a club with a mistaken sense of 
amour propre declines to do. We do not see any other way out of 
the difficulty. The position certainly is more hopeful, and we trust 
the Royal Yacht Squadron will accept the deed, subject to the condi- 
tions mentioned." 
The proposal has been made by the Boyal Yacht Squadron to sail 
for the America's Cup next season under the immediate conditions 
agreed to by Lord Dunraven and the Cup Committee; but not to 
accept the Cup, in the event of the challenger winning, unless under 
other terms than the new deed. This proposal, which has been con- 
strued as an insult by some on this side, is really based on a fact long 
since pointed out by us, that there are two classes of conditions gov- 
erning the America's Cup. 
In the present case, in which the secondary conditions, as agreed to 
by the committee, are perfectly fair and liberal, the primary condi- 
tions as laid down literally in the new deed, are most unfair. The 
R. Y. S. now proposes to accept what is fair, and to sail a match 
which shall prove the superiority of one nation or the other; this 
done, it refuses to accept the mere symbol of this superiority because 
the terms attaching to its possession are both illegal and unsports- 
manlike. There is no likelihood of the New York Y. C. accepting such 
a proposition; hut it cannot rightfully condemn what is only the 
natural consequence of its attempt to cover an act of injustice by a 
thin veneer of fairness. 
In matters which do not directly concern him, the average man is 
not averse to having most of his thinking done and his opinions 
formed by his morning paper. That this is so in the matter of the 
America's Cup is shown by the statements made in perfect good faith 
by many yachtsmen in arguing over the present dispute: statements 
based on the distorted versions of the various deeds which have been 
generally published. The honor of all American yachtsmen is depend- 
ent on the conditions under which the America's Cup is offered for 
competition; every one of our readers is directly interested in the 
question whether these conditions are both fair in themselves and 
legally made, and we commend to them the three deeds as worthy of 
their careful perusal. 
The present international dispute hinges so directly on the exact 
provisions of the various deeds under which the America's Cup has 
been held for competition, that an apology is hardly necessary to our 
readers for taking up valuable space with so much that may be 
classed as ancient history. If any justification be needed for again pre- 
senting the three deedB, to the exclusion of newer and more interesting 
matter, we would point to the indorsement, by the chairman of the 
America's Cup committee, of a false statement made by the New York 
Sun, as published in our columns last week ; and to the gross misrepre- 
sentations contained in the official list of concessions given out by the 
Cup committee to the press on the occasion of each successive chal- 
lenge. From our experience within the past week, it is evident that 
the great majority of yachtsmen are absolutely ignorant of the dis- 
tinctive points of the three deeds. In the course of an argument with 
a well-informed yachtsman, we failed to convince him, in the absence 
of the printed deed, that no provision existed in the first deed autho- 
rizing the holder of the Cup to meet a challenging vessel with the 
entire fleet; as was done in 1870, 
The whole fabric of defense of the new deed is based on misstate- 
ments as to the various provisions of the three deeds; and to the in- 
tentional confusing of the three distinct sets of conditions involved, 
the primary conditions under which are defined the qualifications of a 
challenger, the essentials of a challenge "in due form," and the hold- 
ing of the Cup by a winner— the secondary conditions, relating to the 
actual racing; the number of races, dates, courses, rules, allowances, 
judges, etc.— and the ultimate conditions defining the rights secured 
to a challenger in the event of a failure to agree over the secondary 
ones. In all three deeds these various conditions are jumbled to- 
gether in most confusing disorder, notably in the last one, the 
consequence of over-much legal talent. In comparing the three 
deeds, it is necessary to a clear understanding of the case, to bear in 
mind the three classes of conditions. 
In the official list of concessions which we quoted last week, an 
attempt is made to present the final conditions, hi Clause 8, as in 
reality a part of the basis of a mutual agreement, instead of the last 
resort after the failure of all attempts to agree. There was nothing 
in the original deed of gift which could be construed as justifying the 
holder in substituting in the place of a mutual agreement, the ulti- 
mate terms, of one race over the club course with six months notice. 
There is nothing in the new deed to-day which can justify, in the list 
of concessions alluded to, the substitution of the ultimate terms, of 
three races outside, with ten months' notice and without time allow- 
ance for a common agreement such as governed the details of the 
match of 1893. 
1857. 
The True Deed of 'Gift. 
DRAWN BY THE FIVE OWNERS OF THE AMKRTCA AND OF THE CUP WON BY 
HER, AND AGREED TO BY THE NEW YORK Y. C IN ACCEPTING THIS CUP. 
To the Secretary of the Neio York Yacht Club: 
Sir— The undersigned members of the New York Yacht Club, and 
late owners of the schooner yacht America, beg leave, through you. 
to present to the club the cup won by the America at the regatta of 
the Royal Yacht Squadron, at Cowes, Aug. 22, 1851. 
This cup was offered as a prize to be sailed for hy yachts of all 
nations, without regard to difference of tonnage, going round the Isle 
of Wight (the usual course for the annual regatta of the Royal Yacht 
Squadron), and was won by the America, beating eight cutters and 
seven schooner yachts, which started in the race. 
The cup is offered to the New York Yacht Club subject to the fol- 
lowing conditions: 
1 . Any organized yacht club of any foreign country shall always 
be entitled, through any one or more of its members, to claim the 
right of sailing a match for this cup with any yacht or other vessel 
of not less than 30 or more than 300 tons, measured by the Custom 
House rule of the country to which the vessel belongs. 
2. The parties desiring to sail for the Cup may make any match 
with the club in possession of the same that may be determined upon 
by mutual consent; but, in case of disagreement as to terras, the 
match shall be sailed over the usual course for the annual regatta of the 
yacht club in possession of the Cup, and subject to its rules and sailing 
regulations, the challenging party being bound to give six months' 
notice in writing, fixing the dav they wish to start. This notice 
to embrace Custom House measurement, rig and name of the 
vessel. 
3. It is to be distinctly understood that the Cup is to be the property 
of the club, and Dot of the members thereof, or owners of the vessel 
winning it in the match, and that the condition of keeping it open to 
be sailed for by yacht clubs of all foreign countries, upon terms above 
laid down, shall forever attach to it, thus making it perpetually a 
challenge cup for friendly competition between foreign countries. 
(Signed) J. C. Stevens, J. Beokmah Finley, 
Hamilton Wilk.es, George L. Schuyler. 
Edwin a. Stevens. 
1882. 
The Second Deed of Gift. 
DRAWN BY THE SOLE SURVIVOR OF THE FIVE DONORS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH 
A COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK Y O .. AND ACCEPTED BY THE 
CLUB AT THE ANNUAL MEETING, FEB. 2, 1882. 
The America's Cup is again offered to the New York Y. C, subject 
to the following conditions: 
1. Any organized yacht club of a foreign country, incorporated, 
patented or licensed by the Legislature, admiralty or other executive 
department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on 
the sea or an arm of the sea (or one which combines both), practicable 
for vessels of 300 tons, shall always be entitled, through one or moreof 
its members, to the right of sailing a match for this Cup, with a yacht 
or other vessel propelled by sails only, and constructed in the country 
to which the challenging club belongs, against any one yacht or 
vessel as aforesaid, constructed in the country of the club holding the 
Cup. 
2. The yacht or vessel to he of not less than 30 nor more than 800 
tons, measured by the Custom House rule in use by the country of 
the challenging party. 
3. The challenging party shall give six months' notice in writing, 
naming the day for the proposed race, which day shall not be *later 
than seven months from the date of the notice. 
4. The parties intending to sail for the Cup, may, hy mutual con- 
sent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to ttie date, course, 
time allowance, and any and all other conditions of the match, iu 
which case also the six months' notice may be waived. 
5. In caBe the parties cannot mutually agree tipon the terms of a 
match, then the challenging party shall have the right to contest for 
the Cup in one trial, sailed over the usual course of the annual regatta 
of the club holding the Cup, subject to its rules and Bailing regula- 
tions, the challenging party not being required to name its represen- 
tative until the time agreed upon for the start. 
6. Accompanying the six months' notice, there must be a Custom 
House certificate of the measurement, and a statement of the dimen- 
sions, rig and name of the vessel. 
7. No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can he 
again selected by any club for its representative until after a contest 
for it by some other vessel has intervened, or until after the expira- 
tion of two years from the time such contest has taken place. 
8 A r essels intending to compete for this Cup must proceed under 
sail on their own bottoms to the port where the contest is to take 
place. 
9. Should the club holding the Cup be for any cause dissolved, the 
Cup shall be handed over to any club of the same nationality it may 
select which may come under the foregoing rulf e. 
10. It is to be distinctly understood that the Cup is to be the prop- 
erty of the club and not of the owners of the vessel winning it in a 
match, and that the conditions of keeping it open to be bailed for by 
organised yacht clubs of all foreign countries, upon the terms above 
laid down, shall forever attach to it, thus making it perpetually a 
challenge cup for friendly competition between foreign ctuntries. 
Geo. L, Schuyler. 
* A curious error crept into clause 3 in some unexplained way, and 
for some years the word "less" appeared in many copies of the deed 
in place of "later." 
1887. 
The "New" Deed of Gift. 
DRAWN BY A COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK Y. C., IN TUB NAME OF THIS 
"SURVIVING DONOR," AND ADOPTED IN THE NAME OF THE 
CLUB BY THE SAME COMMITTEE. 
1. This deed of gift, made the twenty-fourth day of October, one 
thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, between George L, Schuy- 
ler, as sole surviving owner of the Cup. won by the yacht America, at 
Cowes, England, on the twenty-second day of August, one thousand 
eight hundred and fifty-one, of the first part, and the New York Yacht 
Club, of the second part, witnesseth: 
2. That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of 
the premises and of the performance of the conditions and agreements 
hereinafter set forth by the party of the second part, has granted, 
bargained, sold, assigned, tranferred and set over, and, by these pres- 
ents does grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer and set over unto the 
said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the Cup won 
by the schooner yacht America at Cowes, England, upon the twenty- 
second day of August, 1851, to have and to hold the same to the said 
party of the second part, his successors and assigns, in trust never- 
theless for the following uses and purposes: 
3. This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved 
as a perpetual challenge cup for friendly competition between foreign 
