9S 
FOREST AND STREAM, 
(Jtot 31, 1897. 
AN EDITORIAL MARE'S NEST. 
HEMPSTEAD, L. I., July 21— Editor Forest and Stream: 
During many years, I have refrained from public discussions 
with such exhibitors as were disappointed and controversial 
•concerning the awarding of prizes, for the simple reason that 
no information will change a belief founded on self-interest 
blended with a deep affection for the dog which failed to 
win. The average Icicker ia the cause of his dog feels that 
he is wounded in his pride, his alEection and his pocket. The 
•one who kicks for commercial advantages and for the ad- 
vertising to be gained thereby cannot be convinced, for that 
Would be diametrically opposed to his prearranged calcula- 
tions. Moreover, I feel that my judgments are ilt topics for 
true criticism, and to such I have no objection: in fact, I 
invite it. But wholesale vilification is not criticism. How- 
■ever, the virulent attack upon my honesty in connectfon 
\vith the judging of the late Oakland show, made in the 
columns of a journal which barely exceeds the dignity of a 
circular, has by some of my friends been thought of sufficient 
importance to warrant an answer, although it is difficult to 
answer a charge which has no specification — one which is 
made up of mere assertion, as is this one. But as the Pacific 
Coast is in away, so far as its canine interests are concerned, 
an unknown country to Eastern fanciers, and as new com- 
plications have been brought into the ca=e through factional 
action, I have decided to throw somfe light on it and on other 
matters. , , , 
First, as to the man, Mr. H. T. Payne, who publishes the 
attack through the columns of the literary bantling afore- 
mentioned—he dawned upon the journalistic sporting world 
but a few short years ago, and with no substantial or ade- 
quate experience in the dog world, or knowledge of dogs, he 
assumed a critic's knowledge and maintained it with an 
audacity which was marvelous. His stay in the dog world is 
not from any public belief in his pretensions, or that his esti- 
mate of himself is correct, or that he is a genuine power. It 
is from his affiliation with factions, which identifies him with 
certain contending interests, such as they may be for i he 
time being; and from the multiplicity of factions which have 
made up the formative period of the dog world in California, 
and from the many mutations of it, combined with the iil- 
sence of any serious journalistic competition, he has ma- - 
aged to keep his hea'i uncertainly afloat. All his writings 
are marked by coaifeness of thought, insolent assnmpiiuu 
and acrimonious invective; opinionated, intolerant, nai-row, 
and much given to belauding his own importance, doings 
and purposes. With a rival paper on the coast, his only 
.competitor, he bas been bitterly quarreling for years. The 
two kennel editors do not hesitate to call each other liars, 
<self-seekers and mi§chief-makers, and to belittle each other's 
knowledge and worth with all the wealth of epithets which 
.can be compiled by diligent application; and yet, whatever 
withers may think or write of him, Mr. Payne never fails to 
publish hiraseli the censor of judges, the preserver of hon- 
esty, the champion of right; this man who recently came into 
the kennel world a fancier ready made. 
Yet this is not all his true greatness. The American Ken- 
nel Club, a few months ago, was the subject of his intern- 
perate virulence in a paper which circulates among his 
acquaintances; that is, his own paper. Reforms affecting 
the Pacific Coast, which the club had for a long while con- 
templated making for the betterment of kennel interests 
there, and which it eventually made, he had the efiErontery 
to claim as being the direct result of his editorial diatribes, 
though the latter were mostly irrelevant, yet irritating coin- 
cidents. When the Pacific Advisory Board was formed he 
became its secretary, although denounced by some as un- 
worthy of the office. Nevertheless the new office gave a new 
prestige to the editor of the journalistic bantling; his knowl- 
edge of dogs was confirmed more certainly, for he wrote 
more as one in authority, and a new impetus was given to 
his editorial insolence. Nor did all these comprise his activ- 
ities in the cause of dog interests. Be it known, he was and 
is a dog breeder, a dog exhibitor, and a dog broker when a 
good opportunity presents itself. Such diversity of talent 
cannot belong to a man of little capacity. Editor, secretary, 
dog-breeder, dealer, exhibitor and broker, all in one persson! 
Is not that comprehensive? 
For an ordinary man it might be difficult to disassociate 
tbe editor from the dog exhibitor, or to disassociate the ex- 
hibitor's interests from those of the secretary's office, or any- 
one from all the rest; and with his factional affiliations and 
interminable editorial brawlings, it is difficult to determine 
which office he would hold aloof from personal matters, if he 
did not hold them all, or how he could benefit the canine 
world. ... 1 
These editorial criminations and recriminations, relentless 
factional strife, malignings, detraction and promotion of 
constant trouble are unknown in the East. The attack re- 
ferred to, if made by one of the responsible Eastern journals, 
would be treated by the public as being serious and worthy 
of respect, for the public would know that it was the result 
of the deep conviction of the editors, who were free from any 
of the resentments of the disappointed exhibitor, and also 
that there was a material responsibility behind the journal. 
Habituated to concede much confidence to the writings of 
Eastern kennel journals, the dog fanciers of the East might 
take it for granted that the same conditions governed the 
publication of all sporting journals on the Pacific Coast. 
Such is not the case. , . , 
It bas been said that for the libelous article which Mr. 
Payne published against me, I have a remedy in the courts 
either in a civil or criminal action against him. At first 
thought this has a plausible force, but as a matter of fact, it 
would afford no remedy at all. An action for damages if 
won could result in no material gain, and if prosecuted 
criminallyj there would be but a remote possibility of con- 
viction, for it iSs a notorious fact that in libel cases it is ex- 
tremely difficult to secure a conviction, be the case ever so 
well established, for the jury will confound the liberty of 
speecb with the license of speech, and will be reluctant to 
decide against the press. The prosecution of a libel suit, 
moreover, is a long, expensive matter. There are many ways 
of securing delays, and generally it is years after one is in- 
stituted before it is decided. There is in this case the formi- 
dable obstacle of a distance of some 3,000 miles to be over- 
come, and besides, it might be extremely difficult to convince 
a jury that anything printed in Mr. Payne's paper was really 
published, since the few copies circulated among his ac- 
quaintances could hardly do so much injury as to impress 
them with its criminality. 
In what was" presented to his band of readfers as a report of 
the Oakland show, but which was a combination of abuse of 
the judge and ill-tempered vilification of him and others for 
no apparent reason other than that Mr. Payne thought dif- 
ferently from him, the following appeared. It is not all, but 
it gives the substance of the charges, and a fair presentation 
of that gentleman's style. The factional spirit appears even 
in this. He said that "eve .i the intelligent winners, realizing 
the brazen-faced trickery of the judge (?), blushed with 
shame that they had been the recipients of his favors." 
Again, "the fiasco of placing the awards was done by Mr. 
James Mortimer, and done in the most shameful and brazen- 
faced manner possible, far eclipsing his dirty work at San 
Francisco a year ago." He states tnat it was quite generally 
understood how the awards would be given "from the char- 
acter of the men who forced his engagement." Of the home 
fanciers with whom he disagrees he says, "it was the plan of 
those who forced him up'on the Oakland Club to ruin dog 
shows on the coast if possible, by disgusting the people; but 
the zeal in this direction of their confederate so over-reached 
itself, that the intended tragedy became a farce." It should 
be kept in mind that Mr. Payne was an exhibitor at this 
show. He then alleges that some of the bystanders could 
name the winners from the circumstance of what men were 
showing the dogs. Here is a sample of a criticism: "Almost 
from beginning to end the St. Bernard awards were a farce, 
while the handling of the specials were actually damnable." 
Again: "Mr. Chas. H. Harker, of San Jose, had been visited 
by three of these officers at as many times, each importuning 
him not to show in this city. But Mr. Harker is a gentle- 
man far above being a party to their low, spiteful work, and 
refused to comply with their demands; therefore (italics 
mine), in the specials his Alta Berna, a bitch that is far more 
than a good specimen, was turned down for a long-nosed, 
hound-headed, flat-sided bitch that should not have won in 
her class. Dr. Taylor's fine young dog, Roxie Savage, was 
also turned down for a long-headed smooth-coat of inferior 
quality, belonging to an officer of the club." This is the 
style of ranting about officers, dogs and judges, which is 
s ^rved up by Editor Payne when he takes the public ^nto his 
editorial confidence. 
Mr. Payne adverts to the ' 'dirty work" I did a year ago — ^that 
is to say, my awards did not all meet with his approval; but 
the mild reference to it gives the reader no idea of the abuse 
which was bestowed upon me at the time. If Mr. Payne' be- 
lieved what he wrote last year, he should have opposed me 
in every way this year. However, under date of Feb. 15, Mr. 
-John E. de Ruyter wrote me that the San Francisco Kennel 
Club had made application for membership in the American 
Kennel Club, with the intention of holding a show in May, 
and asked for my terms for superintending the show and 
judging some classes. In a postscript he added: "If the A. 
K. C. should grant us our charter, would you be willing to 
accept the appointment as our delegate? Mr. Payne, of 
, has suggested your name to me." 
Under date of March 13, Mr. H. H. Carlton, secretary of 
THE NORTHWEST FIELD TRIALS CLUB GHAMPIOH CUP. 
the San Francisco Kennel Club, wrote me as follows: "I 
h ive the honor to inform you that at a meeting of. the San 
Francisco Kennel Club, held last evening, you were unani- 
mously elected our delegate to the American Kennel Club. 
* « * shall feel grateful if you will represent us, as 
there is no one to whom we would intrust our interests who 
we feel such confidence in and who would represent us more 
faithfully." 
Maich 10 Mr. Payne published in his paper the following: 
"Tbe well-known judge, Mr. James Mortimer, who officiated 
at the San Francisco show last year, has been engaged." 
On April 24 he said: "Mr. James Mortimer will judge all 
classes. Mr. Mortimer is a well-known judge all over the 
coast, having judged once tit Los Angeles, twice at San 
Francisco, and once at Seattle. While has criticised 
some of his awards, the same as it feels at liberty to do, and 
does do, with any and all judges when it thinks errors have 
been made, it recognizes in Mr. Mortimer a gentleman of 
ability, and one whom it can unhesitatingly recommend 
to the fanciers of the coast." 
May 1 he said. "That it (the show) will be a success is al- 
ready assured. Mr. Mortimer, who has twice officiated on 
the coast, will do the judging, and this fact alone should 
lead to a large entry." 
On May 15 he said: "Mr. Mortimer judged all classes. The 
majority of his awards was based upon good judgment and 
no reasonable fault can be found with them." 
All this was published before the special prizes, iii which 
Mr. Payne was interested as a oomfietitor, were awarded. 
Mr. Payne's dogs did not win. This will explain the "damn- 
able" character of the judging of the specials. Thus it will 
be seen that the sudden turn against me by Mr. Payne, as 
editor, was co incidental with bis defeat as an exhibitor; 
Mr. Payne, the exhibitor, palpably having a great deal of 
influence with Mr. Payne, the editor, who again might have 
some influence with Mr. Payne, Secretary of the Pacific 
Advisory Board. 
As showing the harmless nature of Mr. Payne's displeas- 
ure and how little it is heeded by the world at large — or even 
by that portion of it over which he assumes a dictatorship — 
the following is interesting. Under date of June 8, 1897, the 
St. Bernard Club of California wired me as follows: "An- 
nual election 9th. Will you act as delegate? Answer." On 
June 12 Mr. Fred Johns, secretary of the Oakland Kennel 
Club, wrote me: "The Oakland Kennel Club requests that 
you will represent it at the American Kennel Club. I in- 
dorse credentials herewith. Hoping that you will pardon 
our taking this action- without first consulting you, and that 
you will be able to accept, I am very truly yours, Fred 
Johns, Sec'y." Under date of June 17 Mr. A. P. Vredenburgh, 
secretary A. K. C, sent me the following: "I beg to advise 
you that I have this day received credentials from the Mil- 
waukee K. and P. S. Ass'n appointing you as its delegate to 
the A. K. C." 
The Breeder and Sportsman (San Francisco) of May- 15, in 
its report of the Oakland show, said, "Mr. Mortimer judged 
all classes and gave excellent satisfaction to the critics. He 
reversed several of 'Uncle Dick's' decisions, and withheld 
prizes where he thought the exhibits were not worthy of 
mention, a practice that cannot be too highly commended: 
but, on the whole, he pleased both exhibitors and visitors.'' 
On May 22 the same journal said: "Mr. Mortimer judged all 
classes. * * His method of hewing to the line caimot be 
too highly commended. Mongrels and third-raters have 
won prizes enough, and it is time the public were taught 
what representative specimens of the different breeds look 
like." 
Had the matter stood as above, I probably never should 
have taken any notice of Mr. Payne's "criticism"; for while 
to the Eastern fancier it seems very earnest, in Mr. Payne's 
paper it is merely a weekly commonplace incident, a trifling 
detail of endless quarreling. Malicious wrangling is the life 
of his paper; by it he gains his notoriety, his advertising. By 
an assault on me he seeks to gain a wider fame, and that is 
why I have studiously refrained from mentioning the name 
of his paper in this. 
At the recent meeting of the A. K. O. executive board, 
charges were made formally against Mr. Payne by the St. 
Bernard Club, of California for his malicious attack upon 
me. I appeared before the Board, and requested that the 
matter be given the fullest investigation. "The Pacific Coast 
Advisory Board has been instructed . to ask Mr. Payne for 
his evidence. As an officer of the A K. C.,he could have 
preferred charges against me at once and immediately. If 
he believed his own statements, it was his duty to bring 
forth his charge and proof at once. That, however, would 
not have advertised his paper as he desired it done. 
When he published his denunciation he should have pro- 
duced his proof — if he had it. He did not have it, but that 
is a trifling matter in his style of journalism. 
Now that the matter is to be investigated officially, I ask 
him to bring forth every particle of proof that he has, and 
do his worst. 
In the meantime the following may be an interesting com- 
parison as showing the opinion of Mr, Payne, the editor, as 
he published it before the show, and the opinion of Mr. 
Payne, editor-exhibitor, as he published it after the show: 
"It (bis paper) recognizes in Mr. ''Mr. Mortimer may, undoubted- 
Mortimer a gentleman of ability, ly has, won the friendsliip o£ 
and one wbom it can unhesitat- those who brought him here and 
inglv recommend to the fanciers wLo have been condemned and 
on the coast." — April 24 kicked forever out of San Fran- 
"Tbe majority of his awards Cisco dogdom. At the same time 
was based upon good judgment ho has won the coudem nation, 
and no reasonable fauic can be aye, even loathing, of every intel- 
found with them."— May 15, iigent fancier who had no u,xe.s to 
grind by the disgraceful awards." 
—May '42. 
Alas! that the calm, judicial editor could so cheaply be 
turned into the frenzied exhibitor. James Moktimeb. 
International Field Trials Club's Derby. 
Chatham, July 21. — Our Derby entry list is not large, 
but most of the old-timers are out, and it is a good sign to 
see new blood coming in, if even in small quantities. 
Messrs. John Davidson and E. Warner, late w ith Mr. George 
Gould, will judge. Quail promises to be as plentiful, if not 
more so, than last year, and everything points to a good 
meeting. Ducks have bred well at Big Point, and I shall 
pay strict attention to them and the other birds, to make 
up for not going to Manitoba. We are now in the midsti of 
the wild excitement of cricket. 
Peg of LiMAVAtjy — J. B. McKay's red Irish setter ijitch 
(Finglas — River Roe). 
Heath Gladstone — W. W. Cain's b. b. English setter 
dog (Dan Belton — Forest Gladstone). 
Selkirk Dover — W. B. Wells's b., w. and t. English set- 
ter dog (Luke — Luna). 
M.\iD Marrian— H. M. Graydon's b,, w, and t. English 
setter bitch (Dash Antonio — Lady Mingo). 
Belle of London — .J. W. Humpidge's b. and w. English 
setter bitch (Brighton Dick — Nancy). 
EssriJ D. — J. W. Humpidge's b. and w- English setter 
bitch (Brighton Dick — Nancy). 
High Noon— S, Holmes's b. and w. English setter 
bitch. 
Mid Day — S. Holmes's b. and w. English setter hitch. 
Jim Bang — Thos. Wear's 1. and w. English setter dog 
(Dash Antonio— Lady Mingo). 
Lady Thornb— E. Glasco's b., w. and t. English setter 
bitch (Dash Antonio — Maggie G.). 
DioGENESE— F. Kurd's b., w. and t. English setter dog 
(Dash Antonio — Patti). 
Nora— Jake Cline's h., w. and t. English setter bitch 
(Washtinaw Grouse— Gladstone's Nora). 
Noble Chieftain— Geo. Kime's b. and w. English setter 
dog (Dash Antonio — Rose Rapid II.). 
Lady Bird— Geo. Kime's b., w. and t. English setter 
bitch (Dash Antonio— Rose Rapid II.). 
Barney — R. Brodie's 1. and w. pointer dog (Paddy- 
Dot). W. B. Wells. 
Nursing' vs. Dosing. 
Many volumes of matter have been written on all the sub- 
jects pertaining to thedogin domestication— his training, breed- 
ing, spirituality, uses, kenneling, feeding, race characteristics ' 
and treatment in health and disease— but none have touched 
on the subject of nursing excepting as a mere incident of the . 
medical treatment, and many times it received but scant 
consideration at that. It remained for that veteran canine ! 
authority and writer, Mr S. T. Hammond, to appreciate the f 
universal importance of good nursing in the care of the dog j 
in disease, and to supply a wotk on it teeming with useful ' 
information. For a title he has chosen the suggestive terms: 
"Nursing versus Dosing." 
In the hands of the layman, the most carefully prepared ' 
medical work, even though it be written with minute elabo- 
ration and free from technicality, rarely results in producing 
the correct treatment. The layman can read of symptoms, 
but he cannot recognize other than the commonest ones, and 
these are often present in many distinct diseases. The vari- 
ations of the pulse, respiration and temperature, their signifi- 
cance, and the multitude of minor symptoms so palpable to 
the trained eye of the skilled practitioner and so hidden from 
the layman, are all without meaning to the average dog 
owner. Still, as there are so many different diseases whose main 
symptoms are alike, the layman who is studying symptoms 
and then searching a book for their significance, finds that 
the dog may have one of several diseases, or a number at 
once; so he is moved to give him the medicines prescribed 
for each disease. As he reads more deeply and his knowl- 
edge is becoming dangerous, he changes his diagnosis andi 
begins a new treatment. Medicines are given with a gener- 
osity and variety and assurance denoting simple faith — the 
outcome of ignorance. Instead of a diagnosis and treatment 
such as the medical author intended, the layman, from hiei 
ignorance of the effects of medicine, is continually dosing, and 
from the uncertainty which alternates with every re-reading 
of his reference book, he is quite as continually changing his 
dosing. The harmf ulness of all this Mr. Ham mond points out 
in his gentle way, and he treats of the beneficent effects of 
good nursing, with instructive elaboration. 
He also treats of the simple remedies for many of the com- 
monest diseases, but he never loses the theme of nursing: 
good nursing. As an adjunct to the skill of the physician 
good nursing has been long recognized by him as indispen 
sable in successfully treating the human subject. The train, 
I 
