Sept. 231 1899.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
2B9 
Lost or Dead. 
The Res Adjattcata. 
\ cQKJiESpQNPKNT sent iis the following clipping, taken from 
columns of a contemporary. The iirst paragraph of it contains 
question and answer which appeared in Forest and Stream 
Aug. 26, under the caption "Lost or Dead." The second para- 
»pli contains the rulitig of our contemporary, and places the 
tter res adptdicala; for we can readily infer that the ruling of 
'Ivecognized Anthority" is final and better than the ruling of a 
lin, everyday authority, i?r ^ higher authority, or the higliest 
thority, though we were under the impression that any anthor- 
, existing in fact, was recognized — without recognition there is 
authority. 
,1ur correspondent desired tliat we give our reasons for our 
swer as set ictfth in the following: 
'(I. H. S., Witbita, Kan. — In a. recent issue of one of your 
temporari<ss, llie following qtiery was propounded and 
swered, and as I do not Killy agree with the decision given 
send it to the 'recognized authority' for an answer: 'A 
noter a:l the score calls out to the trap puller, "Are you 
idy?" and receiving' the response, "Ready," he calls, "Pull," 
iiultaneously with which, or a moment after, but before the 
ip is .sprung, he discharges one barrel. What should be the 
leree's decision?' 'Ans. — If he does ' riot fire his remaining 
rrel at the bird, or if he fires and the bird is not gathered 
Ihin bounds, it is a lost bird. If he fires and the bird is 
thered within bounds it is a dead bird.' Do you agree with 
E above decision? 
'.\ns".— JJo, only in part. If the- shooter's gun was discharged 
fore the trap was ojSened it was no bird.' If, when the trap 
IS opened the bird was a sitter and he fired and killed it on 
c ground it was no bird. If the bird took wing when the trap 
s oyjened and the shooter used his second barrel and the bird 
IS gathered within bounds, it should be scored a dead bird; 
it if tlie bird was not gathered within bounds it should be scored 
lost bird. Tliere is no rule that we ever saw which requires a 
ooter to use his second barrel when the first barrel has been 
4cliargcd before the frap was opened." 
VV(; contend that, under the circnmstances specified in the forc- 
ing question, it is a "lost bird" if the shooter does not fire his 
rond barrel. We will support our contention with a pertinent 
c of authority and reasoning. 
I'o us, the point seems so simple, so analogous to many other 
ints of a related kind, and so fully covered by usage and the rules 
at the invoking of any authority, "recognized" or unrecognized, 
nnecessarj'. It is possible that there are people who would 
difficulty in understanding that two and two are equal to 
ar, yet it would hardly be necessary to invoke the dictum of 
"recognized authority" to establish this simple point, nor would 
hardly be necessary for the "Recognized Authority" to refer the 
atter to itself before the point could be well established. 
Let u? briefly examine the question on its merits, for the mo- 
ent setting aside dogmatic assertion and consequent res ad- 
licata, and in their stead considering rules and usage and reasons 
ppleinented with a little argument. 
"When Does Competition Begin? 
There must be a definite starting point at which the shooter, who 
ready to compete, begins his competition formally. There also 
ust be a coincident point of time and circumstance at which 
iicial cognizance, in respect to competitor and competition, has 
beginning. This point is when the shooter declares himself in 
e competition by the order "Pull." All the rules recognize 
at competition begins at this order, and they all caution the 
sp puller to heed it carefully. As governing him in this matter, 
,e American Shooting Association rules set forth: "And it shall 
the trap puller's duty to pull the traps evenly and fairly for 
ch contestant, and instantly after the shooter calls 'Pull.' " 
This command thus denotes that the shooter is ready, and that 
mpetition shall begin. The rules further impose that if the bird 
liberated before the shcoter gives the proper order, or if :t is 
It liberated promptly after the order is given, the shooter may 
iclare it a "no bird." All of which go to show that when the 
ooter calls "Pull" competitive action begins thereat. There are 
any other rules which recognize that the shooter is in com- 
tition when he calls "Prill, " but enough has been adduced to 
ustrate the matter under consideration. Once in the competition, 
e shooter is responsible for his doings. 
The rules thereon are all so mandatory that when the order 
■'nil" is given they impose that the contestant is irrevocably 
mmitted to the competition and must continue it to a formal 
nehision. He cannot declare a "no bird" and consequently 
nnot declare no competition, because of any error or oversight 
his own part. He is held directly responsible for his own 
mpetitive acts, be the same acts of. omission or commission, 
ideed, no one but himself can be held responsible for his 
nipetitive doings. Faults ascribable to his gun or ammunition, 
failures caused bj' extraneous interference, are not chargeable 
him under certain qualifications, and are therefore not pertinent 
the argument. 
Declaring a "no. bird" under legal conditions, either by the 
ooter or the referee, is equivalent to declaring that at that at- 
npt there is no competition, and that the shooter will begin 
' coinpetition anew. 
The Logic of Never Saw. 
The "Recognized Authority" sagely and judicially declares: 
here is no rule that we ever saw which requires a' shooter to 
e his second barrel when the first barrel has been discharged 
fore the trap was opened." This is its reason for deciding 
o bird." 
\ decision founded on such a principle or on such an authority 
It hardly be accepted as sound. On the one hand is the dog- 
Itic ruling, "no bird," which, on the other hand, is frankly ad- 
tted to rest on rather a cloudy source; that is to say, "on 
rule that we ever saw." As a process of reasoning, the 
Recognized" seems to reason on rather a sharp slant from a 
iple subject into vacuity. 
!jet ns for a moment depart from the "Recognized's" logic, 
ich prcjves one material point by citing another point which it 
ver saw. Let tts consider some rules which all can see, some 
iges which all know, and some principles which are necessarily 
lerent in the competition. Let ns consider the rules first: 
The shooter at the score calls "Pull," and fails to shoot be- 
ase his gun is not cocked. Who is responsible for the over- 
fht and the consequent loss? What. is the decision? We might 
Jare that it is "no bird," because "there is no rule that we ever 
v" which requires a shooter to shoot with a gun which is not 
;ked, nor one which is not loaded; but unfortunately for the 
o-bird" decision, there are rules which require the shooter to 
responsible for what he doesn't do, as well as for what he does 
in a competitive way, and the decision under them is a 
St ^it4" On this point Rtfle 18, oi tb« A>»ericai» Sbootingr 
Association rules, declares: "If the gun is not cocked or the 
safety not properly adjusted, atld, tbe bird escapes,, it shall be 
scored a 'Lost bird.' " 
The intent to hold the shooter responsible for Iris own over- 
sights, etc., is further shown in the same rules— Rule 22: "A 
shooter, having fired his first barrel and left the score, cannot 
return to fire his second barrel." 
Thus, from the beginning to the end of the shooter's inning, 
he is held to a strict accountability for 111:8 aifits Of omission and 
commission. This is in accord with the spirit and purpose of the 
competition, and permeates the rules. 
But let us assume that he does not shoot at the bird at all. 
What is the decision? "No bird"? Yes, if we rest it on the 
authority that there is "no rule that we ever saw" which requires 
the shooter to tise his gtirt if he does not choose to do so. It 
is, however, a "Lost bird" tinder the rules, which take the shooter 
in hand for what he doesn't do but should do. Who is respon- 
sible for his failure to shoot? ,Wh}r. himself. The Interstate and 
Hurlingham rules are alike on this point, namely: "If the 
shooter advances to the mark, and orders the.ti'ap to be pulled, and 
does not shoot at the bird, or his gun is uot properly loaded, or 
does not go off owing to his own negligence, that bird is to be 
scored a lost bird." Note the strict accountability to which he 
is held after he "orders the trap to be pulled." His errors of 
omission and commission are then scrupulously charged to him. 
L'nder that rule he cannot fire off his gun before the trap is 
pulled without being responsible for it. 
Now, "he advances to the mark" knd calls "Pull," and dis- 
charges one barrel before the trap is opened. Remeiriber that 
he does not shoot at any bird, because he cannot do so; there 
is none in sight. 
The premature shooting is an error arising from excessive 
nervousness or misjudginent in pressing the trigger too firmly 
in preparing for the shot. Who is responsible for his error 
after he calls "Pull" and has declared thereby that- he is ready 
and is in the competition? Plimself, of course. It is liis act, 
and with it is his responsibility. 
On what ground, then, can the referee declare there is "no bird" 
and consequently no competition when the .ihooter has advanced 
lo the mark and ordered the trap to be pulled, and committed the 
error? On what ground has the shooter a right to declare himself 
in the competition, and then, when he makes a. harmful error, have 
the audacity to declare that the competition is then and there 
ended and suspended till he can correct his error, and commence 
anew fully prepared? Under what rule or usage—apart from the 
logic of things that he never saw— can a referee excuse any of the 
shooter's competitive errors? How, from any matter of reason 
or any matter of fact— apart from the logic of things nnseen— 
can a referee, when the shooter is in competition, declare" there 
is "no bird," basing his decision on a circumstance which oc- 
curred before the trap was opened? It is a physical impossi- 
bility, then, to shoot at the bird, and equally it then is a physical 
impossibility for the bird to fly. To be a "no bird," it must have 
an opportunity to fly, and to be exposed to the shooter's fire. 
Suppose that, after the trap is . pulled, the shboter flinahes, and 
shoots into the ground a few yards in front of himself.- Pie then 
has but one barrel to shoot at the bird. Who is responsible for 
his crippled ability? Suppose that he does not then shoot his 
other barrel and the bird escapes. What is the ruling? "Lost 
bird." But his responsibility at that moment was no greater than 
it was at any other moment after he had called "Pull," 
The shooter who fires his gun after, h,e calls "Pull,"' or when he 
calls "Pull," is not to be excused because he has but one barrel 
when the trap is opened. But, because he has committed an 
error thereby, he must stand to the responsibility of the act. The 
empty barrel is not a datum of the competition. The shooter's 
acts and their results are the data, and he must abide accordingly 
as they- are for or against him. and by these acts and their 
results it is determined whether he wins or loses. 
The "No Bird" Contention. 
It has been advanced as an argument, on the matter under con- 
sideration, that the bird is on the ground when the erroneous 
shot is fired before the trap is pulled, and for that reason is a 
"no bird." The fallacy of this contention is easily shown, as 
follows: 
First, if the bird is on the ground when the first shot is fired, 
and this before the trap is opened and after the shooter has called 
"Pull," the bird must needs be killed with the second barrel 
to make it a "no bird." If it escape, it is a "lost bird," according 
to Rule 10, Interstate: "If a bird is shot at on the ground with 
the first barrel, he may use his second barrel, but such bird if 
gathered is a 'no bird'; if lost, it is a 'lost bird.' " So also de- 
clare the other rules. 
Second, if the birds in each trap are on the ground before 
a trap is opened, after the shooter calls "Pull," then all the birds 
in all the traps are on the ground before a trap is opened. Here 
we are confronted with the rather peculiar situation of five'birds 
on the ground at once. But the principles of the competition, and 
usage and the rules, consider only one bird in the competition at 
a time. Before ;-i trap is opened, the shooter does not know which 
bird will be released, and the rules particularly guard against his 
knowing which bird will be i-eleased; thus he cannot knpw 
which bird to shoot at before the trap is opened. 
How, then, can the referee, under the rules, declare "no bird" 
when no bird had been exposed to fire, and the bird, further, had 
no relevancy to the shooter's nervousness or misjudgment? The 
shooter could not be allowed another bird on the ground of ex- 
traneotis interference, for there was none; and it could not be a 
"no bird," because of. the shooter's own error; and also because 
it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the competition that a 
shooter should be allowed -to correct his own erroneous acts, after 
he has directly engaged in conrpetition; and it was a physical 
impossibility that it could be a "no bird" when it was safely in- 
closed within an iron inclosure, the trap, when the shooter made 
his erroneous act. Bird and wild shot ■were unrelated. The referee 
might say that he excused the shooter for the accidental discharge 
of his barrel, and though he would violate the rules if he so ex- 
cused him, he nevertheless would be dealing with a niatter of fact; 
but if he declared a "no bird" when the latter was safely within 
the trap when the accidental shot was fired, and when the shot 
had no significance whatever in respect to the bird, as it had not 
been liberated to be shot at, he would be dealing largely with a 
matter of fancy, not of fact. 
If we assume that competition begins when the trap is opened— 
as some shooters contend — it does not in the least free the shooter 
from the responsibility of his acts. On the contrary, he is held 
the more closely to such responsibility. If his gun is not loaded 
when the trap is pulled or the shooter does not fire at the bird, 
the rule already quoted applies to him, as follows: "If the shooter 
advances to the mark and orders the trap to be pulled, and does 
not shoot at the bird, or his gun is not properly loaded, or does 
not go off owing to hia own negligence, that bird is to T)e scored 
a 'lost y^^^/ " This y??? ^Vi<fh the I<Jg><? of thg Iteyer- 
The error of discharging the gutt tiiliTltentionally is analogoiis 
to the error of unintentionally misplacing the safety or not ad- 
justi-ng it correctly, or of forgetting to load the gun, or of stand 
in at a nearer marlf than the one prescribed, or of closing the 
gun after shooting, the second barrel being needed, etc., and all 
these competitive acts of omission and commission stand together 
in tlie shooter's responsibilities, or they fall together. Yet, as com- 
monly accepted, the rules governing the shooter's doings stand 
as feood law. Through past ages, the wisdom of the trapshooting 
world has formulated its rules and usages, covering the points 
which may arise in competition; and thes.e rules which all can see 
are much better authority than the rules any one never saw. 
We have gone into this subject , at soine length because it ha,s 
afforded a subject of discussion to some shooters for^ some 
months, particularly in and about New York.. Concerning it, 
opinions were much divided. We will give space with picasurt 
to the communications of those who wish to discuss the matter. 
Trap Afottnd Reading. 
Sinking Spring, Pa., Sept. 14.-At a meeting of tlie IndcpendeCit 
Gun Club, of this place, held this evening, it was decided to hold 
a grand sweepstake target shoot on Saturday, hcpt ^o, the pr.)_ 
gramme to consist of seven 10 and 15 target events at a "asoriablr 
itrance fee. The club also decided to hold its annual fall target 
id live-bird tournament Wednesday and Ihursday, Oct.. U an.J 
, on the club's grounds at Hainly's Hotel, '. he first day will be 
gram 
en 
an 
targ'et evenVsTviVkdded\uonc^y.""The^^^^^^^^^ day the Ind'ependent 
Gun Club will furnish live birds for its events that are claimed 
to be some of the fastest and finest live birds ever trapped for a 
shooting match. The club has secured 400 pairs of fresh country 
birds that will be left to Oy until the morning of the shoot, when 
they will be used. The live-bird programme will consist ot the 
Independent introductory, 7 live birds, entrance |5, class shooting, 
and the Sinking Spring handicap, 15 live birds, .$10, class shooting. 
Miss-and-out events and extra events to suit the shooters will con- 
stitute the balance of the programme. The Sinking Spring grounds 
are easily reached from Reading every 20 minutes by trolley line, 
taking the Womelsdorf car with the red flag on Penn street. 
'Vrthur A. Fink, of Reading, will manage, and any information 
wanted wUl be cheerfully given bv addressing him at 426 hranklin 
street Reading Pa. The representatives of the sportsmen trade 
are invited to ie present, as they can shoot for the price of tar- 
gets and have fine accommodations for a display of their goods. 
In the live-bird events they can contest for the purses. 
Phcenixville Pa., Sept. 14.— West Chester turned the tables d« 
the Phoenix Gun Club and defeated their team in a fourteen-nien 
team race to-day on the Phccnix Gun Club's grounds at this place 
by the score of 258 to 248. Each man shot at 25 targets over the 
magautrap. The first match was shot at West Chester and was 
won by Phoenix. As both clubs have each won a victory, a third 
match will be shot, the place to be decided by toss. The scores 
of to-day's match follow : 
West Chester. Phoenix.. 
Greene 2a Miller 22 
Lumis 22 Buck .22 
I-Iem-y 22 Pehlert 21 
^ord • 21 TTolman 19 
Torpey 21 Hodge ■ 19 
Gill 20 Ennis 19 
Peters 20 Winstead 19 
Sellers 20 Dotterer , 18 
Davis IS Irlams IS 
Tackson 18 Pierce }l 
Howard 15 Erb lb 
Harrison 14 Stevens 15 
Pechm , 13 Dunlap 14 
Mowere ,.,13—258 Farley ftv-BlS 
Pottsville, Pa., Sept. 15.— An interesting live-pigeon shooting 
match took place here to-day. There were 5 live birds allotted to 
each man and Head and Walker grassed their full quota of birds. 
The scores: Head 5, Walker 5. Jenkins 0, Davenport 3, Hallihati 
2, Stone 2. 
West Chester, Pa., Sept. 16.— Henry won the West Chester Gun 
Club's challenge cup to-day by breaking 22 out of 25 targets. The 
scores follow: 
West Chester challenge cup, 25 targets per man: Ploopes 13, Har- 
rison 15, Todd ^17, Davis 21, Nate '11, Peters 20, Ford 21, Gill 21, 
Henry 22, Hoar 19, Mowere 15, Howard 19. 
Pottstown, Pa., Sept. 1.5.— The Shuler Gun Club received the 
South End Roman shield trophy, won at Reading in the team 
shoot on Sept. 9, and have placed it on exhibition in Custer's win- 
dow, this place. Arrangements are being made to hold a shoot, 
when this handsome trophy will again be contested for by teams 
of five men each. 
DtJSTER. 
Florists' Gun Club. 
VVissiNOMiNG, Pa., Sept. 12. — The weather was clear to-day, 
though there was a stiff wind, which made some added difficulty 
in the competition of the Florists' Gun Club's monthly shoot, 
the third shoot in the second series of monthly handicap contests. 
In the afternoon the strong wind caused the targets to make, un- 
certain flights, making the shooting very difficult. The conditions 
for the contest were 25 targets, known angles, thrown from five 
expert traps, and 25 targets, unknown angles, thrown from a 
magautrap, handicap added to the score. At the known angles 
everybody, with the, exception of the State champion, A. B, Carl- 
ledge, shot well. After the first 10 Cartledge became very erratic, 
missing 8 out of his last 15, George Anderson making high score. 
On the magautrap the shooting, with the exception of Wolsten- 
croft and Park, was very erratic. This was caused by the high 
wind. For the 50 targets Wolstencroft broke the greatest num- 
ber. Park. getting into first place by having a longer handicap. 
The scores: 
Twenty-five known, five expert traps, and 25 unknown, magau- 
trap: 
Known. Unkn. PIdcp. Total. 
McKaraher ...... .1111111001101001111111111— 20 .1,3 16 49 
Tones 1111111001000011110100011—15 15 20 50 
Dorp 0010010111101110101011111— tfi 9 15 40 
Craig 1011111111001101111011101—19 9 20 48 
Wescott 0111000001111111101101011—16 12 19 47 
Parsons 1001111011111111011001111—19 15 13 47 
Smith 1101111101110111110110111—20 18 7 45 
Bell 0111111111111111111010111—22 16 12 .50 
Harris 1111111111011011011111110—21 18 11 50 
Anderson 1111111111011111111111111—24 18 6 48 
Cartledge 1111111111100001001010111—17 18 9 44 
W IT AV 1101111111111111111111101—23 23 2 48 
Park 0111111011111111111111111—23 21 14 58 
Twenty-five magautrap: Points. 
M cKaraher 0101000101100011111011100—13 2 
Jones 1111010110001110101101010—15 3 
Dorp 0000001110010101100000011— 9 
Craig 0010010011010011010100000— 9 1 
Wescott , , , , 0011010111010010001000111—12 
Parsons .0010111010111111100100101—15 
'>niith , 1111901011100111111011011—18 
Bell ...1001110011111111001111000—16 3 
Harris , ,.0101110010110101111111111-18' 3 
Anderson , '..1110101111101110111100011—18 1 
Cartledge 0101011100011110111111111—18 
W PI W 1111111101111111111111110—23 1 
Park 1110111110011111111111110—21 3 
Points won to date: Anderson, 5, Bell 5, Harris 5, Wolstencroft 
4, .Ball 4, Burton 3, Smith 3, Dorp 3, Coleman 3, Jones 3, Park 3, 
McKaraher 2, Cartledge 1, Craig 1. 
Team match, 25 targets, unknown angles: 
McKaraher's Team. Craig's Team. 
McKaraher 13 Craig 16 
Bell 17 • Cartledge .,16 
Jones 16 Wescott 14 
Harris 20 Smith 20 
Dorp 19 Parsons 17 
Anderson 21—106 Park 20—103 
The neighbors were naturally interested in the scientific parent, 
"Why," they asked this person one day, "do you always give your 
son chloroform when you administer corporal punishment to 
him?" First, of course, the scientific parent laughed heartily at 
their ignorance and simplicitv. This done, he said- "I wish to 
