Forest and Stream. 
A Weekly Journal of the Rod and Gun. 
Copyright, 1904, by Forest and Stream Publishing Co. 
Terms, $4 a Year. 10 Cts. a Copy. 
Six Months, 
NEW YORK, SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1904. 
j VOL. LXII.— No. 55. 
/ No. 346 Broabway, New York. 
: ^ THE PALMA TROPHY. 
The status of the Palma Trophy, as it concerns the 
victory of the American rifletaen last year at Bisley, is 
now in a fair way to be officially settled. " The National 
Rifle Association of America, at a meeting in Washington, 
D." C, last Saturday, decided to return the Trophy to the 
National Rifle Association of Great Britain. 
Owing to a justifiable belief that the N. R. A. of 
America would consider, and wisely decide on its merits, 
the unpleasant controversy concerning the legality of the 
special service rifles used by the American team of rifle- 
men, Forest and Stream has refrained from any pre- 
judgment. We expected that the final decision would be 
rendered fully and vigorously after a fair, full, and fear- 
less consideration of the case. As it is now officially 
passed upon, it is freely open to public discussion. 
The N. R. A. of America presents its case in the form 
of a preamble and resolution formulated according to the 
report of its committee. 
The resolution to return the Trophy is a most illogical 
consequence to the four "Whereases" which precede it. 
The first recites that the committee has given the matter 
careful consideration. The second is in the nature of a 
censure of Col. L. C. Bruce, the captain of the American 
team of riflemen. After regretting the differences which 
have been made public, this "Whereas" continues as 
follows : 
■'And, while \vc find the captain of the American team made no 
secret whatever of the exact character of the rifles, believing their 
use perfectly proper, which differences of opinion would never 
have existed had he officially submitted the rifles for approval, in 
accordance with the explicit instructions given him by the presi- 
dent of this Association." 
The foregoing as censure is undeserved, and as a de- 
fense it is fallacious and absurd. Furthermore, it has 
many superficial signs of an attempt to divert attention 
from the true issue. In our opinion, the real, pertinent 
mistake was the sending of the American team abroad 
with two sets of radically unlike rifle barrels, the special 
set to be used if no one objected, the regular service set 
to be used in the event that objection was made to the 
special set. Thus the two sets of service barrels, differing 
radically, had inherent disturbing elements which worked 
a stultifying complication for the American team at the 
outset of the match. At that time there was, and since 
then has been, a standard U. S. service rifle, and it is not 
to be assumed that the N. R. A. of America did not have 
a full, minute knowledge of its specifications. The Ameri- 
can team, equipped with two sets of unlike service bar- 
rels, perforce must have had one set of barrels which 
were not allowable. If one set was right, the other set, 
being materially different, must consequently have been 
wrong, as they concerned the competition for the Palma 
Trophy. Both sets could not be so radically different 
and still be the U. S. service rifle. This leads us up to 
Col. Bruce's connection with the matter, as set forth in 
the Association's censure of him. If the special rifles were 
correct U. , S. service rifles, there was no occasion what- 
ever for him to submit them for the approval or disap- 
proval of his fellow captains, or for the ruling of the Brit- 
ish authorities on them. He, under such circumstances, 
could not have been guilty of mistake, because mistake 
then was impossible. The special service rifle was either 
a service rifle or it was not. If it was a service rifle, Col. 
Bruce's instructions to submit it were unnecessary, and if 
it ^yas not a service rifle, it should never have been used 
at all. But further, following Col. Bruce's instructions 
as given him by the president of the N. R. A. of America, 
if objection should be. made to the. special service rifles 
before the match was shot, he was to retire them forth- 
with, without demur, and was then' to use the other set 
of rifles. Therein is an admission either of irregularity or 
: of inefficiency of management which excuse or evasion 
cannot obscure. If, an objection before the match was 
conceded to be amply sufficient for the peremptory dis- 
qualification of the special service rifle on the ground of 
ineligibility, then, pari passu, an objection after the match 
was shot, dealing with the same matter of fact, should 
have precisely the sarne force and relevance. In other 
words, if the special rifles were confessedly ineligible in 
the face of an objection before the match, the mere use 
iif theui ill the match did not change their status in the 
least. Furthermore, if the special service rifles were made 
according to service specifications, it would be clearly im- 
proper to retire tliem because of any objection, if such 
rhould be made. The declaration concerning the readiness 
to accept an objection as sound necessarily carried with 
it a confession that the Americans recognized the irregu- 
larity of the situation. But why did the president of the 
American Association consider it necessary to submit the 
special set of barrels, and why, at the same juncture, did 
he consider it unnecessary to submit the other set? If 
they were service rifles alike they were equally entitled to 
recognition without favor. It is noteworthy that none of 
the other team captains submitted their rifles for ap- 
proval or disapproval, nor did they in any way suggest a 
necessity for so doing. 
The chief official plea, offered to justify the use of the 
special rifles, is that no one objected to them, and there- 
fore the team used them. That plea under the same con- 
ditions, if accepted as sound, would have permitted the 
use of any kind of rifle. The true test was not whether 
there was an objection or not, but whether the rifle was 
a bana fide U. S. service rifle. 
• The third "Whereas" states that "prolongation of the 
arguments as to what is or is not conformity with regtt-- 
lation patterns of rifles might be continued indefinitely, 
with no prospective good resulting therefrom." As a mat- 
ter of fact, the arguments should be continued till the 
issue is definitely settled on its merits. The length of time 
required to accomplish it is immaterial. Indeed, to settle 
such matters would seem to be a valid reason for tha 
Association's existence. But the plea is evasive. The Brit- 
ish Association did not raise the question of what con- 
stituted regulation patterns, but it did raise the very per- 
tinent question whether the special set of rifles con- 
formed to regulation patterns. In view of the fact that 
the American team was equipped with two unlike sets of 
rifles, one of which they ^'oluhtarily offered to retire on 
objection, the question was both proper and pertinent. 
1 he question is easily answered by yes or no. No U. S. 
Army officer would dare to confess that he does not know 
wliat constitutes a service rifle, and if he knows, he 
assuredly could pass on the special service rifle without 
any controversy. 
The resolution presents the following: 
Resolved, That we hereby ratify all statements made in the letter 
of the president of this Association to the secretary of the 
National Rifle Association of Great Britain, dated March 7, 1904, 
and instruct the president to withdraw the Palma competition 
from the programme for the current year, and to cause the Palma 
trophy to be immediately returned to the National Rifle Associa- 
tion of Great Britain, to be held by that organization for future 
competition. 
The Statements referred tO' in the resolution as : being 
made in a letter of the president to the secretary of the 
National Rifle Association of Great Britain, dated March 
7, alleged that the special service rifle contained one turn 
in eight inches, the same as the present service arm of the 
United States, and that the barrel containing such turn 
was approved for service adoption by the Secretary cf 
War on June 19, 1903. The National Rifle Association of 
Great Britain held that an arm approved June ig could 
not satisfy the rule of the match which required that the 
rifles used therein were to be "in all respects of the pat- 
tern adopted and issued to the troops for service." They 
furthermore contend that neither at that time nor since 
Vi^ere rifles issued by the U. S. Government with a twist of 
one in eight inches. These are allegations which should 
be met squarely and fully. The issue is not confined to 
the narrow lines of the British Association vs. the Ameri- 
can Association. The real issue is between the British 
people and the American people. If the rifles were regu- 
lar, the American people have a right to know it fully, 
definitely, and conclusively. If the rifles were irregular, 
the American people have an equal right to know it. As 
the matter now stands, there is an evasiveness which by 
the world at large will be construed as guilt. 
The resolution concludes with a direction to the presi- 
dent to return the Trophy. If the Association had no 
right to its possession, it should have been returned 
months ago. If the Association has a right to it, it should 
not be returned now. It is regrettable that official action 
concerning it did not take place sooner. Direct accusa- 
tion and universal gossip at the outset afforded ample 
ground for it. The official action of the British Associa- 
tion was of itself a necessary cause for action by the 
American Association. From the first there was a reason- 
able certainty that only official action could definitely set- 
tle the issue either for or against the American team. 
The accusation of unfairness, publicly made, appeared in 
the public press both in England and the United States 
soon after the Bisley contest. 
As for the American status : In a Washington, D. C, 
daily paper, an American rifleman of note in July, 1903, 
soon after the Bisley meet, more directly alleged that the 
special rifles used at Bisley by the American team were 
not service rifles. The issue in the United States was met 
in various ways — by the scream of the American eagle, 
by personal denunciation of the aforementioned rifleman, 
?nd by peevishly accusing the British of being bad losers; 
or that if the American team violated the conditions gov- 
erning the Palma Trophy competition the British did like- 
wise. The tu quoque fails, because, while the British did 
l^ave some special barrels, the British Government had 
officially approved them as regular, therefore they are out 
of the controversy. Even if the British had been wrong, 
it is a weak plea to justify wrongdoing by others. But 
opposed to mere sentiment and spiteful verbiage were 
serious specifications which were not fairly met. While 
it was shown that the American team were open and 
above board in every particular concerning their rifles, 
that the different captains offered no objections to the use 
of them, and that therefore the American team deemed 
themselves justified in using them, all those circumstances 
were beside the real issue, were unofficial in any event, 
and are hence irrelevant. The conditions of the match 
were mandatory. The captains, singly or jointly, had no 
power to abrogate or add to the conditions governing it. 
The gossip, newspaper discussion, accusation, etc., had 
so much vitality that as a consequence the National Rifle 
Association of Great Britain was forced to take reluctant 
official action. In October, 1903, over three months after 
the Bisley contest, the Association sent a letter of inquiry 
to the National Rifle Association of America. In it were 
questions asking for specific data concerning whether the 
rides of the Palma contest had or had not been violated 
by the American team. The reply was not vouchsafed till 
March, over four months after the inquiry. The reply ad- 
mitted that special barrels had been used, a fact which had 
been fujly admitted theretofore. 
The reply of the British Association, sent promptly, in 
April was sharp and pertinent. It pointed out the differ- 
ence.^ between the rifles used in the match and the U. S. 
service rifle. All this was presented as a matter of fact 
concerning the match in question, and not in any way as 
consequent to official protest. Indeed, ,nO' protest was 
necessary, for the fact once determined that the rules 
governing the Palma Trophy were violated by the Ameri- 
can team, disqualification of that team followed as a neces- 
sary matter of course. 
All this data leads up to the long-delayed action of the 
National Rifle Association of America at its meeting in 
Washington last Saturday. The decision to return the 
Palma Trophy is not a result of having squarely and fairly 
met the issue. The American people are still in the dark 
as tO' whether the American team used a legitimate ser- 
vice rifle or not. The whole controversy on the Ameri- 
can side rests on strong assertion and indignant denial. 
It furthermore has been over-freely , alleged in the 
American press that the British were bad losers. Such 
assertion is the weakest rant. There is not a single cir- 
cumstance to sustain it, in connection with the issue. 
When the American team won, the British team and the 
British people were lavish in their congratulations, and in 
the honors and hospitality bestowed on the Americans. 
Under the conditions then existing, the British took defeat 
manfully and pleasantly.. Subsequent developm.ents on 
matters of fact concerning the service rifles, both in 
America and England, and questions as to the eligibility 
of those rifles, were the causes of the trouble. The Eng- 
lish had a perfect right to know the facts fully and freely. 
In all this there is nothing to show a bad loser. In all this 
there is much to show that the Americans have not met the 
issue fairly. The return of the Palma Trophy by the 
National American Rifle A.if.ociytion for reasons othc.' 
than those set forth in the issue, will tend to convince the 
public that the contention of the Britishers is sovmd. 
However tiieir action rnay be cloaked by indirection, it 
seeins to be t;uitamourit to a confession that the use of 
the special rifles: under the circumstances was a .mistake, 
and that the \\\x. of the Anierican team is puU Jtnc| yoidt, 
