Allgust 7, 1^75 
275 
to death at the idea, and be fully justified. Pass the 
lio-ht this way. What in the world do you mean? 
I. T. W. 
[Shad has been taken with bait and by a rod. This 
thing appeared in the American Sportsman a year ago. 
— Ed. Rod and Gcn-] 
Fair Play. 
Boston, July 21. 
Editor Rod and Gun: 
We have in Massachusetts a large party of sportsmen 
who insist that the great majority approve of cock shoot- 
ing on the 4th of July — a large party who insist that the 
prevailing sentiment is for September 1. Others, again, 
think cock shooting should be prohibited for three years; 
others that all shooting ought to begin October 1. 
How is it ever to he settled what the prevailing 
sentiment is? 
Would it not be entirely feasible to have caucuses in 
all the important places in the State before the next 
'legislative session— say in Boston, Worcester, Spring- 
field, Fitchburg, etc. ? 
If, for in.stance, the Society for the Protection of Use- 
ful Birds, in Boston, were to advertise (long beforehand) 
that at a certain day and hour, and under its auspices, a 
hall would be open to all who chose to vote, without 
expense to the voters; that certain questions would be 
voted on by ballot, each ballot containing the name and 
address of the voter; that it would make every effort to 
secure a law in accordance with the sense of the major- 
ity. Would not this secure a fair expression of senti- 
ment, if fairly and honorably conducted, as it no doubt 
would be? Would it not at least put people in the 
wrong who cavilled at the law and the means of obtain- 
ing it? Would any man, at least in Boston, who did or 
did not avail himself of the opportunit}', have a right yo 
say the laws were unjust, unfairly obtained, etc. ? And 
if like meetings were held in other parts of the State, 
ought not the whole people to be satisfied? 
I have heard, in conversation, the expediency sug- 
gested of securing, through the National Association 
for the Protection of Fish and Game, a law in Congress, 
imposing a moderate tax — say of a dollar — upon each 
possessor of a gun, excepting dealers; the object, on the 
part of the Association, being to secure a register of all 
sportsmen throughout the country. For the formation 
of clubs, the information of brother sportsmen, and the 
enforcement of game laws, such a register would be in- 
valuable. Though the burden of such a tax would be 
small, the revenue to the United States would be very 
considerable. Has such a thing ever been publicly dis- 
cussed? 
As I understand it, the National Association hopes to 
secure from Congress game laws applicable to every 
State, with contemporaneous close days. Would such 
a law be constitutional? W. 
Dittmar vs. Hazard, Etc. 
PoCGHKEEPsiE, N. Y. , July 10. 
Editor Rod and Gun: 
Several weeks ago I sent for a sample package of Ditt- 
mar’s powder, which came to hand a few days ago. On 
the 7th inst. I gave it a trial, the results of which are 
highly satisfactoiy. Side by side with it I used Hazard’s 
Sea Shooting , FG, the very best rifle powder made in 
this countrj’. Consequently, the proceedings were quite 
lively, and Mr. Dittmar, in a letter which he sent me, 
stated that he had no long-range powder on hand, but 
by raising the elevation a trifle, the samples he sent 
would do. That is, he meant at distances beyond .500 
yards. Therefore, I did not use this ammunition further 
than the aforesaid distance. One package was marked 
“ RB,” the other “ RC,” but both alike in strength. I 
used 40 grains by weight, according to his instructions. 
Of black powder, 95 grains. I used a Sharps’ Creed- 
moor, and fired from rest. The Dittmar shows a ten- 
dency' to scatter, which, in my opinion, is caused by its 
lightning-like quickness. The strain on the gun was 
enormous, too much so for the good of the rifle. I 
think, from the way it acts, that it would, in a short 
time, eat out the entire rifling, although I may be in 
error. I do not like to say this, and would not, if it 
were not for the fact that I have a good solid founda- 
tion on which to base it. The ingredients of which this 
powder is composed are generally understood by experts 
to consist of an infinitessimal amount of nitro-glycerine 
and gun-cotton, toned down with sugar, etc. No won- 
der Mr. Dittmar says he can give it a velocity of 1,600 
feet per second, or greater still. If properly manufac- 
tured, it should not be dangerous, and the inventor must 
look well to this point. The bursting of a gun, by its 
use, will cause hundreds to let it alone or discontinue 
its use. The bursting and spoiling of several guns has 
already been recorded in the Rod and Gun, but as the 
parties do not give any particulars, I can hardly' credit 
the story. If any reader of this paper has had his gun 
injured by its use let him come forward, tell us all about 
it, and enlighten his fellow sportsmen. 
The following is the result — ten shots at each range, 
string measurement; very slight wind, sun bright: 
At 100 yards- 
-Dittmar, 7: Hazard, 
. 5V. 
150 “ 
“ 9Vz\ “ 
TK. 
200 “ 
“ 16>i; “ 
“ 250 *• 
.. 20ii; “ 
18K. 
*• 300 “ 
“ “ 
30. 
“ 350 “ 
" 4n?i: “ 
30%. 
400 “ 
“ 58?i: “ 
5n«. 
“ 450 “ 
“ 795^; " 
773a. 
“ 500 “ 
“ “ 
90,V. 
This was a very' fair trial, but the Dittmar failed to 
surpass, or even equal Hazard’s, although the maker 
claims it superior to any black powder in the market. 
The Dittmar powder was too quiek, throwing its shots 
about in a very promiscuous manner. For shot-guns it 
will answ'er better — works first-rate. 
Ex-Gun.maker. 
Dr. Rowe to Arnold Burges. 
New' York, Aug. 2. 
Editor Rod and Gun : 
That I ever was the author of an anonymoiis com- 
munication, or attempted to evade the responsibility of 
any statement oral, or written, has never been charged 
to me, even by my enemies. When I have suflicient 
reason for saying anything against a man I say it to the 
point, either individually or over my own signature or 
nom de plume, and hold myself personally responsible 
in every sense of the word. 
I wrote the article on the Mineola Bench Show', w'hich 
seems to have excited to such an extent the ire of Mr. 
Burges as to cause him to forget the immunities of 
journalism and the privileges of a reporter. The fact 
that I had written it I communicated to Jfr. Burges. 
As you are well aware it was not written with the mo- 
tive that Mr. Burges imputes it to, viz. : through spite 
and to injure him and his dog, but on the contrary 
to accommodate you in consequence of your regu- 
lar reporter not being able to be present. The article 
was sent you as a regular report, in accordance with 
such arrangement, and you placed it where y'on saw fit. 
I mention this fact, as also the addition.al one, that the 
arrangements were made two weeks before the show, 
and when Ranger W'as not in this country (uor was I 
aware that Mr. Jenkins was expecting him) to refute 
the vile insinuations of Arnold Burges, that I sent the 
report with the special object of injuring him and his 
dog — an idea induced in the gentleman’s mind from a 
self knowledge of his own cour.se of action under simi- 
lar circumstances. 
The communication was therefore no more an an- 
onymous one than was his own report of the Ken- 
tucky State Meeting and Bench Show held at Paris, Ky. 
In neither instance was there a signature attached. His 
praised Rufus; mine Ranger. If mine was anonymous 
so was his. 
As to my being inimical to him, the statement is as 
false as absurd. No one knows better than Mr. Arnold 
Burges the falseness of it, or el.se his recent acknowl- 
edgment of my friendship is as much at variance with 
the true sentiments of his heart as the charge of being 
inimical is with the absolute facts in the case. I can 
assure him that had I been inimical to him, I would 
have informed him of the fact long before, and not have 
chosen his dog as the vehicle, nor the ^fineola Bench 
Show as the opportunity. 1 judge of a dog as he is. 
A man the same. I may detest a man and admire his 
dog, and eice versa. In neither instance should I attack 
the one through the other. 
The idea evidently intended to be conveyed by his 
communication in your last issue, that my animosity 
arose from envy of his owning Rufus is but the natural 
ofispring of that manifest egotism and vanitT which 
ever appropriates to itself and to everything connected 
with or belonging to it superioritj', whether merited or 
not. Let the gentleman be assured that neither Rufus, 
any other dog he owns, nor the gentleman’s individual 
self, position, talent, or anything that in any shape or 
form belongs to him, do I envy. 
As a reporter, I maintain it was my privilege to con- 
trast the dogs as I did, and in* no w:iy did I transgress 
the rules of etiquette, nor exceed my privileges in so 
doing. The statement, I can truthfully asseverate, was 
made in all honesty and sincerity as a matter of fact,' 
and entirely free from all prejudice or intention of in- 
juring either him or his dog. AYhy should I be preju- 
diced? Wherein am I interested in the one more than 
• 
the other? 
The more so had I the right to draw the comparison 
I did, since Rufus had been extolled both publicly and 
privately with his owner’s pen. And as being then gen- 
erally considered (an opinion in whicu I shared) to be 
tlie finest specimen of the red Irish setter dog in this 
count.y, it was not invidious to stale Ranger was the 
superior looking dog of the two, and to predict that if 
they ever met, Mr. Burges would have to haul his col- 
ors down. For such a precedent I have to refer to the 
frequent occurrences of similar remaiks in reference to 
horses in our sporting papers. 
Mr. Burges, had my name been appended, would not 
have noticed the remarks, since they who know me re- 
gard my opinions to be of too little consequence to be 
influenced by them. This coming from the Nestor (?) 
of sportsmen, the acknowledged (?) canine authority of 
ihe nineteenth century, impels me to say to him that 
he must not for one moment imagine I w'ould have the 
:'.rrogance to expect my opinions on such matters to be 
•' of any consequence,” unless indorsed by such a lumi- 
nary as himself, no more than 1 would have the temerity 
to constitute myself an authority so long as the Burges 
lives. To do so would be as ridiculous tind futile as a 
star of the fifth magnitude attempting to vie with the 
moon in effulgence and splendor. 
But there is a remarkable conincideuce in this affair, 
which is, that those who have known Mr. Burges for 
a long period, as well as others who have not known 
him so long, should have used almost the exact words 
in regard to his opinions on dog affairs. 
Can their estimate be correct? Has a glamour caused 
the shadow to be mistaken for the substance? Truly 
has the mountain been so long in labor and brought 
forth only a mouse ?^ N. Rowe. 
Mineola. 
Louisville, Ky., July 24. 
Editor Rod and Gun: 
The individual who reported for your paper the 
awards at the Mineola Dog Show has managed' to put 
in print a statement which was evidently rather intended 
for the glorification of his own bad feelings than for the 
satisfaction of your readers. A proper spirit of courte.sy 
is commendable everywhere, but is especially desirable 
in men who write of dogs, because so little of it is 
habitually exhibited by such writers. 
Certainly, no just person will be inclined to question 
the right of j'our correspondent to form and express an 
unprejudiced opinion on the relative merits of two or 
more dogs ; but every honorable gentleman will wonder 
at the spirit, and criticise the motives which impel a 
man to institute an invidious comparison between one 
dog present at a competitive examination, and another 
dog distant more than a thousand miles. 
The Irish setter Ranger, which won at Mineola, is 
doubtless a good dog, else he would not have received 
the first prize, and any admirer had the right to contrast 
his merits with those of his competitors ; but to say, as 
says your correspondent, that he “laysoveF’ Mr. Arnold 
Burges’ dog Rufus, and would beat him at a bench 
show, tends rather to prove the littleness of the writer’s 
mind than the goodness of his judgment. Rufus was 
not in competition at Mineola. He was not, therefore, 
properly .subject to compari.son with Ranger. Nor is 
it probable that your correspondent ever saw him, ex- 
cept on the day when, confined in a box and coated with 
t ir, he was landed in New York, after a long and tire- 
some sea voyage. Before that <lay Rufus was the win- 
ner of three prizes in England. Since that day. he has 
won the Champion Cup as the best setter in any class 
at the dog show held by the Kentucky Sportsmen’s 
Association. 
I have been around the world and over a very large 
portion of it, and I never saw a finer Irish setter dog 
than Rufus. And yet I do not say he is finer than 
Rufus, for I have never seen the last-named animal, nor 
do I know anything of his good or bad qualities. But 
I think I have the right to say that had Ranger been the 
veriest cur, your correspondent would not have hesi- 
tated to call him a better dog than Rufus. And I say 
this because I believe that his enmity to Mr. Burges is 
as well known as are his name and his envious dispo- 
sition, and for the reason, also, that bis prejudices are 
so strong that he is utterly incapable of forming an im- 
partial judgment. Justice. 
