Difficulties of Judging. r 
107 
character of the competition, and that to give heavier work is unjust alike to the judges and the 
exh, tutors Two judges, ,f acting together, would require as much time; but our own opinion 
has long been t lat the best plan of all is to employ single judges, each being responsible for his 
own awards, and having no more than he can accomplish with credit and success. We have 
noticed many shows, and have almost always observed that individual judges, if not overworked, 
gave the most satisfaction by their awards. Thus, we have known a show of nearly 900 entries 
judged by two gentlemen in concert, a task far too heavy for the one day allowed ; whereas 
held each taken 450 pens, the work would have been done with promptitude and ease. A. judge 
can always call in his colleague to advise in any case of difficulty ; but by putting the real 
responsibility for every award on some one person’s shoulders, we believe the greatest likelihood 
is secured o.f attaining all that character and ability can give to the task ; while if only a fair 
amount of work be given them, most judges prefer this method, after trial. We say after trial, 
because we have known several who strongly objected beforehand to undivided responsibility, who 
afterwards were as strongly in favour of the plan we advocate. If one judge finally checks over 
the awards ol his colleague, remarking on any which to him appear erroneous, there will be little 
risk of errors escaping detection. Judging, however, is a thankless task at best. If all his awards 
are correct, the judge has only done his duty ; if not, he often reaps abuse in no measured 
terms. The least, then, that gentlemen who act in this capacity have a right to expect is that 
time and quiet be given them to perform their task with due deliberation and care. This is by 
no means the universal rule, however, as we have just seen ; and the neglect of it is the cause of 
many awards for which the judges are unjustly blamed. The way in which such matters are more 
usually managed, and his views on the whole subject, are well put in the following remarks by 
the late Mr. Edward Hewitt, the celebrated English judge, who during his lifetime officiated at far 
more shows than any other individual, and who in fact devoted almost the whole of his time for 
many years, gratuitously , to the service of amateurs in this manner : — 
“ I can endorse to the very echo the remarks of Mr. Teebay as to the arrangements most 
eligible in the appointment of judges to their customary duties. It is at agricultural shows moie 
especially it so frequently happens, that though the poultry judge (or judges) have twenty-fold 
the number of decisions to return that are required in any other division of the show, the poultry- 
tent arrangements are the last completed of any; and thus these awards are commenced, fiom 
lack of punctuality in getting the judging-books completed, the very last of an} on the show 
ground. It is in such cases the efficiency of the arbitrator becomes developed , or, on the other 
hand, his comparative unsuitability for the manifold duties of office is as painfully manifested. 
Limited time, coupled with the exigency of getting done by the hour for opening, brings 
into the strongest light these contradictions. If at such an unexpected juncture 
league of even an efficient judge proves simply a drag-chain on his own personal exe 
and relapses into anxiety, hesitation, and uncertainty, the tiial of the able arbitiato p 
portionately increased — far better at such a time w r ould it be to act alone and on 
responsibility. . . 
“ I quite agree with judges having their appointed classes, and a sufficiency o . 
engaged to finish their own awards with comfort to themselves, and m tune or pu ica ion m 
printed catalogue. When thus allotted, no doubt each arbitrator will exerc.se especial care as o 
those classes exclusively assigned him ; but putting more than two judges together cons y 
retards, rather than promotes, active decisions, and not less frequently b«n^wi 
But quite the most urgent objection made by committees re Y 
