FOREST AND STREAM. 
1^2 
Can distil from such garbage as they seek and take. 'This in 
no wise relates to wholesoine discussion. I think that I may 
feafely say that no "kickei" of late years ever did anything 
bf _ great material irnportance fot the support of trials,' and I 
think nothing of any iinportance at all which did not have a 
tlirect bearing on his own jaersonal interests, if there is any 
kifckfer who is hereby unjustly treated, the public no doubt 
VoUld be glad to know of it. Having thus mildly presenti d 
the aierlts of the kicker, his claims to public recognition 
now may be dropped till such times as they have asain a 
t>artibiilar significance. 
t'he tjualiflcations of a good Held trial judpe cover a great 
deal more than the home theorist could possibly know. As 
the data of his opinions are most times from the work of 
tiogs which he has observed in field shooting, judging atrial 
appfears to Mm to be the quintessence of simplicity. What 
is easier than to walk along leisurely and observe and note 
What a dog does? That is easy — but let us investieate 
What he really has to assume in the way of work and re- 
sponsibility when judging a corpetition. 
As said before, the field trial judge must first have a good 
knowledge of field work, and by this we do not mean that 
every man who lias sbot many years over setters and pointers 
has such knowledge. Some men will have a belter under- 
standing of the dog's work in one season, than some other 
men will have in a lifetime, and again, some other men will 
never learn. The reason is that the matter of brains governs 
'this branch of intelligent effort as it does all others in the 
world in which man is a factor. Without proceeding 
further into this feature, we may assume that the field tiial 
Judge should have a generous degree of common sense, 
which is uncommon sense when we consider it and the 
many men who do not possess it. 
The average man who is unused to mental labor finds great 
difficulty in concentrating his thoughts on one subject for a 
prolonged period of time. It frequenlly happens ihat with- 
out the mental training and discipline, he is unable to do so. 
This may be noted also in many ways in everyday life when 
men unaccustomed to mental labor attempt to solve mathe- 
matical problems, or make abstracts of titles, or 1 steu to a 
sermon, or read columns of statistics, and some men read 
whole pages in an absent-minded way without knowing a 
word of what they have read. [Some men will hear the first 
lew words of a friend's discourse, and although their f^ccs 
may express the greatest of interest, they do not hear a word. 
They are mentally indolent or incapable of concentration. 
The field trial judge must keep his eyes on the dogs' cloings 
incessantly, for unless he sees every detail of a piece of work 
done, he doesn't know anything about it. For instance, he 
takes his eyes oif the dogs for a moment while they are 
ranging; he looks again; one dog appears to be pointing 
nicely and the other one, a few yards behind, is backing, 
apparently. The circumstances would seem to justify giving 
a point to the one and a back to the other. The new judge 
would so rule to a certainty. Now the evidence is in this 
case all circumstantial. The clog which was apparently 
backing might have pointed first, and his competitor might 
have crossed in ahead a moment afteiward and made an 
independent point closer to the birds, so that the dog which 
pointed first would thus appear to be backing. This hap- 
pens every now and then at field trials, and it happened at 
Grand Junction in 1887, and decided first place erroneously 
in an important stake. Sometimes one dog points and his 
competitor instantly stoals it; sometimes both dogs point in- 
dependently at the same instant, and the judge must see it 
all, else he doesn't know. 
As for the errors, if the judge's eye is off the dog when a 
flush or other error is made, he may never know it hap- 
pened. 
He constantly must be mentally comparing the diligence, 
range, bird sense, beating out the ground, one with the 
oth r, and the same with the precision, quickness and good 
judgment in reading and lointing; also whether either 
dog is self-hunting in whole or iu part, or whether he 
is working honestly to the gun. Also, it is necessary to note 
whether the work is done independently, the dog's own per- 
ception and execution producing the results, or whether it is 
from crafty coachiog given by his handler, or from jealous 
rivalry of his competitor. 
It is easily perceived, when the matter is explained, that 
the most incessant watchfulness is indispensable The 
judge's mind must be concentrated always on the work. 
Wi h this he must note the general course so that the dogs 
may be able to work on consecutively without such inter- 
ruptions as are made by sudden changes of course to and fro, 
throwing the dogs and handlers in among the spectators, or 
balking them so that they lose all idea of continued work; or 
becoming separated they are working on independent, separ- 
ate courses. When this happens there is more or less loud 
whistling and calling to the dogs to shape their efforts to a 
new, common course, and when one handler has then his dog 
gMng right, the other handler may still be frantically slriv^^ 
jag to get his dog in hand and impress on him the new direc- 
tion in which he is to work. A field trial is a much more 
ponderous affair to handle than is one or two dogs in tield 
work, quite as much so as is a regiment more dilQcult to 
handle than a file of men. 
When the green judge has dogs and handlers working at 
cioss purposes, he is wasting a great deal of time, and when 
the heat is ended the work has been so irregular and inde- 
cisive that he does not know much more about the dog's 
merits than he did before. He soon perceives that handling 
one or two dogs to shoot over, and handling two handlers 
who are handling the dogs in a competition, at the same time 
obHcrving the need of economizing time and ground so as to 
give the dogs the greatest possible opportunities which time 
and grounds afford, are quite distinct affairs, and one experi- 
ence depreciates his own conceit very much. 
National Beagle Club of America. 
At the field trial committee meeting of the National 
Beagle Club of America, held at the rooms of the American 
Kennel Club, the following members were present: Jas W. 
Appleton (chairman), Hermann F. Schellhass, John Bateman, 
Geo. B, Post, Jr., G. Mifflin Wharton, A. Wright Post, Jas. 
Jj. JJernochau, A. D. Lewis, N. A. Baldwin and George W. 
Rogers. 
The report on the new Produce Stake proved very encour- 
aging; the entries are seventeen bitches and thirty eight pop- 
pies. It was voted that the eighth annual field trials be held 
at Hempstead, L. I. Mr. Bradford B. Turpin, of Eosbury, 
Mass., and W. S. Clark, of Linden, Mass., will ofliciate ^ 
judges. 
The following resolutions were passed: Wfiereas, Death 
has removed from our rolls the name of Mr. George Laick, 
for aixiyears treasurer of the^National Beagle Club of Amer- 
ica, one of the oldest members of the organization, and a 
breeder of national reputation. 
Resolved, That we testify to our deep regret at the loss of 
one who was held in the highest esteemj not only by the 
members of the club, but by all sportsmen and lovers of the 
dog; and who, as executive member of the club from its 
beginning, and as a member of the former American Beagle 
Club, labored earnestly and vigorously to promote its welfare 
and the objects of the Association; and be it further 
Resolved, That these resolutions be incorporated as a part 
of our minutes, and a copy sent lo the bereaved family with 
an expression of our sympathy. 
THE OAKLAND SHOW JUDGING. 
Hempstead, L I,, Aug. ^.—Editor Forest and Stream: 
I mailed to Air. Payne areplytotheirrespoiisibleaccu.sations 
which he made against me on the ground that my judging 
of the Oakland, Cal., show was dishonest, and dishonest 
only because Mr. Payne said that ib was so. He seemed to 
have different opinions from me on the judging, and the ex- 
planation of this difference he seeks to find in my dishonesty. 
He, however, seems to have some trade reasons also for this 
difference of opinion, as will be touched on more fully here- 
inafter. My reply be refuses to publish, and for his refusal 
he publishes the following reasons: "As a copy of this pecu- 
liar literary effort has been mailed to his paper, it would pub- 
lish it in full were it not that our space is too valuable to 
waste on such long-drawn-out vaporings," etc. And then 
by way of showing how valuable is his space, he uses three 
columns— a full page— in a labored, irrelevant reply, totally 
foreign to the issue; and all this reply is made to my article, 
which he refuses to publish. He also garbles my letter some- 
what to give it a turn to fit his own purposes, and to illus- 
trate probably his idea of the "liberty of the press." 
Notwithstanding his affectation of the value of space in 
his paper, the Teajxjt, he has devoted several columns 
to the subject in different issues since charges were lodged 
against him with the A. K. C, and in his paper of July .31 he 
had a long article on "press censorship." No such sophistry 
as the "liberty of the press" will serve to cover up Mr. 
Payne's malice and. malignings. The press has done a grand 
work in which he has had neither part nor lot. Mr. Payne 
refrains, however, from informing the public that libels and 
other unlawfulneiss are abhorred by public sentiment and 
the laws of society, even though the unlawfnlne.ss appears 
in his paper; that some sheets published in the past were so 
libelous and contrary to public morals and public good that 
they were by law suppressed; that while there is a 
most commendable sentiment in favor of the "liberty 
of the press" and the freedom of speech, there is 
also a strong sentiment against its abuse. And yet, 
it seems somewhat inconsistent for Mr. Payne to prate of 
the freedom of speech, as it applies to himself, and then deny 
me the use of his columns to answer accusations which he 
made in them. He permits his readers to hear his side of the 
case only. It is palpable that he fears to have the case fully 
presented, and yet he is the man who boasts, in season and 
out of season, of the fearlessness of and of its high standards, 
its accomplished editor, its unselfish efforts in the cause of 
the dog, and — free advertising. As a matter of principle 
such refusal of a hearing is grievously unfair and wantonly 
wrong. As a matter of fact it is not of the slightest import- 
ance, for the weakling, his pajier, with its handful of 
readers, bears about the same proportion to the sporting 
world that a drop of water does to the water in all the 
oceans. Fortunately there are journals which will give a 
fair hearing to the man whose character is subjected to wan- 
ton and malicious attack. 
Every word and phrase of Mr. Payne's latest attack shows, 
not a struggle for a principle, bub a bitter personal enmity 
and an unscrupulous use of any means bo gratify it. All the 
broad ground of public zeal has gone; the personal anger 
and the personal enmity stand forth, visible to him who 
reads. He is malignant and unscrupulous. 
However, it was but common fairness and common de- 
cency that the case (after it had been taken up officially, as 
shown by the charges of the St. Bernard Club, of California, 
against him, and in due form presented before the A. K. C), 
should not be prejudged or prejudiced by him, but this he 
deliberately attempted to do in his issue of July 31, in an 
article headed "Turned Down Again," in which he first en- 
deavors to belittle and cast odium on the members of the St. 
Bernard Club, of California, and then discloses his real pur- 
pose, as follows: 
"Now, ia tbeir desperation, as a last dying convulsion, they have 
preferred charges against H T. Payns for some strictures appearing 
in about some individual, wbicli was not just to their Uliing, 
and now tlie 'oaarble hear;.' has met them asjain, for the A. K. O. has 
very sensibly refused to proceed in the matter and has advised the 
secretary of the so called club to present his charges to the Pacific 
Advisory Board This simply means that if the Advisory Board 
wants to lis, en to them it may, but that the A. K. 0 doesn't propose 
to." 
There never was a more brazen, insolent and unscrupu- 
lous attempt to influence the action of a judicial body of men 
by misrepresentation than this, and there is not in it even 
the attempt to observe law or fact. As is well known, any 
matter concerning canine affairs on the Pacific Coast must 
firsb come before the Pacific Advisory Board, and its action 
is then subject to the approval or disapproval of the central 
body, the American Kennel Club. The charge was at the 
outset sent to the A. K. C. It was sent back to the Pacific 
Advisory Board, because thei'e was no other course to pursue 
under A K. C. procedure, and "advising" the secretary of 
the return of the charge was the term used in all such cases. 
It in no wise implied that the Pacific Advisory Board could 
do as it pleased in the matter. It must take cognizance of 
all such cases which come before it in proper form. It has 
no such arbitrary powers as Mr. Payne seeks to clothe ib 
with. It will be observed, also, that what Mr. Payne fran- 
tically called charges a few weeks ago are now merely 
"strictures." 
And now a few words by way of rejoinder to Mr. Payne's 
answer to my article, which Mr. Payne refused to publish, 
and which he thereby also deprived his little band of mar- 
tyrs, his readers, of the privilege of reading. 
In his full page of alleged reply I note that Mr. Payne's 
name appears twenty-seven times and that the name of his 
paper appears twelve times; and as Mr. Payne and the paper 
are one and the same, as will shortly be shown herein, he 
refers directly to himself no less than thirty-nine times, and 
I presume that that was what he referred to when he said 
that "our space is too valuable to waste," etc. He needs it 
all for himself. An editorial with Mr. Payne's name in it 
thirty-nine times could not be otherwise than gratifying to 
himself and instructive to his readers. It is modest, tactful, 
erudite, pertinent and convincing. He mentions himself; 
his dogs, himself; his dogs, hisself ; dog trainer, hisself; ex- 
hibitor, hisself; his criticisms; experience; connection vi'ith 
dog shows; his judgment, in repetition ad. nauseam. But 
this is as one might expect it to be, for Mr. H. T. Payne is the 
owner and editor of the Teapot, and therefore he has 
a right to require his readers to read his name thirty-nine 
times on one page if he thinks that it would be a benefit to 
them to do so. He is the whole editorial and business staff. 
One man is quite sulBcient to edit the paper and to attend to 
its business affairs, with ample time also to breed dogs, 
sell them, purchase them on commission, and cultivate 
brawls so as to have something for his readers to read about. 
Two compositors are force enough to set up the type of his 
paper, in which are the thoughts of the editor on such mat- 
[A.VG. 28, 1897 
ters as he deems to be worthy of his attention. There- 
fore, when his paper belauds Mr. Payne's worth and good- 
ness— hia virtue, modesty, disinterestedness, expert knowl- 
edge, truthfulness, abhorrence of roguery, high standards 
of action, etc.— it merely sets forth what Mr. Payne 
wrote of himself and what the two Compositors set up 
in type, and what the bantling bore forth in its pages 
to a craving world. When his paper fearlessly proclaims 
that Mr. Payne is a great and good man, Mr. Payne should 
know that it is so, for he wrote it himself. When Mr. Payne 
quotes the Tea-pot as authority to establish a point, he surely 
should know the value of his own writings; when he pro- 
duces its sayings as a matter of evidence to prove the truth of 
what he says himself, no doubt is left as to his correctness; 
and when he praises the Tea-pot with generous beslavering, 
there can be no doubt but that he feels that it fully deserves 
it. But, though it is pleasing to read his name thirty-nine 
times on one page, I am constrained to believe that he has 
forgotten the eubjeet-matter in contemplation of his own 
greatness. 
It would be idle to attempt to follow Mr. Payne's three 
columns of irrelevant matter. The issue as he raised ib at 
first is entirely abandoned by him. Of the three columns, 
about a half column is devoted to a eulogy of other judges 
whose doings are in no way related to the case, yet they are 
exalted that I may appear little; about a full column re- 
counts Mr. Payne's canine and journalistic experience, 
enumerates the oflBces he has held in different bench show 
clubs, touches on the merits of his dogs (though he had the 
tact ■ to refrain from quoting prices), and there is a general 
effort to give himself a genuine imporbance outside of mere 
pretence. The resb is mostly a personal attack upon myself 
on new lines. It does not seek to cloak the personal enmity 
and vindictive purpose of the Teapot, or of Mr. Payne. If 
the Teapot were really a big teapot it would be a most dan- 
gerous cauldron, but being a little teapot with very little in 
it, it can do no hai-m. I challenged the proof of his accusa- 
tions and dared him to do his worst— all of which he avoids 
answering with studious care; this is the matter he should 
answer; he should do so, but he cannot. He has overshot 
his mark and stumbled into a pitfall that he blindly over- 
looked. Still a man who is engaged in the multifarious 
business of dog breeder, dog-broker, secretary, exhibitor, 
editor of the Teapot, and brawler-in-chief to the Pacific 
Coast, cannot be expected to be precise in all things, nor to 
be fair to a nicety in any. 
My exposure of his incompetency and imposition on the 
kennel world in his assumption of expert knowledge and 
his arrogant attitude toward everyone and everything, in 
his self-consbituted position of expert critic, evidently went 
home to a weak spot, for he particularizes his educational 
experience as follows: 
"The Teapot (Mr. Payne) has a pretty clear knowledge of 
Mr. Payne's connection with dogs and dog shows, and knows 
that his first experience with dog shows began at Philadel- 
phia in 1876, and that during the years of 1876, '77 and '78 he 
attended the St. Louis and Baltimore shows of '76 (sic), the 
first Westminster show at Gilmore's Garden, '77, and the St. 
Louis shows in '77 and '78," etc. 
Who can remember Mr. Payne on that straggling circuit? 
He was .simply a spectator, as were all the other spectators 
who attended those shows, and who would scarcely claim 
that they acquired expert knowledge and high critical ability 
from attending them. But we have Mr. Payne's word, 
backed up by the indorsement of the Teapot, that he really 
did see those shows. If the mere attendance at shows makes 
one an expert, then we have thousands of experts here in the 
East who have seen many more shows that Mr. Payne 
ever saw. Let the thousands of experts now feel that they 
are duly qualified; for has "not Mr. Payne said so? He 
claims that be had journalistic experience on the daily 
press before he recently plunged into the kennel world of 
journalism. Then all the other editors, reporters and writers 
of the daily press are likewise qualified to write on dogs. 
There are expert critics and kennel writers by the thousands, 
for if Mr. Payne can qualify as a kennel editor by experience 
on the daily press, why cannot all other writers do the sama? 
"Mr. Payne was breeding, breaking and handling thorough- 
bred dogs from imported stock more than a quarter of a cen- 
tury before Mr. Mortimer was ever heard of in the judges' 
ring, and this under the tutorage of one of the most thor- 
oughly posted dog men in America at that time." Again 
nothing but as5sertion. Name the imported stock and the 
posted dogman of that remote period. The fact is that he is 
a cheap pretender, and only by the accident of his surround- 
ings has he been possible. In the East he never would have 
passed the mushroom stage. As an experb in canine matters 
he is an impostor. At no time can there be found any of his 
writings in the Teapot which show intrinsic knowledge of 
canine subjects. Let the reader of the Teapot look back and 
consider how much was knowledge and how much was 
brawling over personal matters, and he will find that the 
knowledge was little and the brawling much. 
The life of the Teapot is its little sizzle. It is its policy. 
It brings it into notoriety. As a matter of unwritten history, 
though well-known history for all that, Mr. Payne promotes 
the dissension on the coast. While many of the fanciers of 
the Pacific Coast are unfortunately more or less identified 
with factions, I found that they were nearly all generous, 
broad-minded gentlemen, and I firmly believe that if there 
were a kennel journalist among them who had the good of 
the fancy at heart, instead of an ulterior purpose to foster 
dissension and make every wrangle a factor inf urtheringhi.s 
own personal interests, there would soon be no bitterness. 
Instead, "there would be peace and common effort for the 
public good. A peacemaker could do it, bub that isarQle 
which Mr. Payne is unable or unwilling to assume. 
After refusing to publish my letter, and then garbling it 
to suit himself, he asserts that my tesbimony is impeached. 
Testimony to what? He has not even presented my case. I 
ask him again to make hia specification. After he has done 
that it will be in order to balk of testimony — not before. He 
asserts that at the Oakland show I "turned down" Mr. Hark- 
er's fine bitch, and on looking in his advertising columns of 
that time, I find that Mr. Barker was an advertiser in the 
Teapot. He recently r-ebuked me for not placing Pittsburgh 
Tommy higher than reserve, and on looking in the advertis- 
ing columns of the Teapot I find that Pittsburgh Tommy is 
duly advertised therein. The Irish setter Chief, .Jr., was 
placed third, and this was another award which did not meet 
Mr. Payne's approval, and the TeapoVs comment was as fol- 
lows: "In Irish setters by far the best dog in the class was 
given third, and absolutely the worst one put to the front," 
and again on consulting the TimpoVs advertising columns 
I find that Chief, Jr.'s, stud card occupied a prominent posi^ 
tion therein. 
I mentioned in my last letter that one element of hia mod- 
erate success was the absence of any serious journalia tic com- 
petition on the coast. He immediately seizes this as a good 
thing to publish as a thrust at his contemporary, perverting 
it to suit his own inference. The Breeder and Sportsman, 
against which he aimed it, devotes most of its space to horse 
interests; and when I said that the Teapot had no serious 
journalistic competition, I meant a competition that was 
specially devoted to canine interests. There was no jnbentjon 
to reflect on any one personally. 
The effort to prove that there was something wrong by 
associating a lot of circumstances together— that such and 
such a man took such and such a dog into the ring, and that 
then such and such a dog lost or won — ^is too despicable to 
treat seriously. Someone must lead the dogs into the ring; 
and as to who does so is beyond the judge's control, and is 
none of his business anyway. Mr. Payne's "criticisms" 
teem to be based largely on what other's have told him, aa 
