December 7, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
508 
W E always expect to hear of a number of complaints about 
errors in judging during and at the close of the Chrys¬ 
anthemum season. Far more complaints have been sent to us this 
year than could possibly be published, even if they had possessed 
more than local interest, which the majority did not. Moreover, 
some of them were evidently of a personal character, as emanations 
from exhibitors who were surprised and annoyed by the verdicts 
recorded, or from their friends who were doubtless honestly 
convinced that the judges were wrong in their decisions. Most of 
the complaints were of a general character, no definite or tangible 
evidence being forthcoming in support of the opinions expressed, 
and in more than one instance the remarks contravening the 
justice of the awards were founded on an inspection of the exhibits 
on the second day, or twenty-four hours or more after the judging 
was completed. Also we have had the verdicts that were recorded 
it may be presumed, by experienced men, overturned with the 
greatest ease by self-appointed censors, who, however competent 
have not yet been chosen by societies to officiate at important 
shows. It could not be supposed that the public would be greatly 
interested in narratives of what may be termed second-hand 
judging under the circumstances indicated, and possibly the nar¬ 
rators of the alleged delinquencies, in some cases at least, were glad 
rather than otherwise that their criticisms were not published. 
We do not imply that in all the instances which have been 
brought to our notice of alleged errors that the official adjudicators 
were of necessity right in every case, and that their censors had 
nothing whatever to complain about. That is not the question. 
The point is this. In nine out of ten complaints of the verdicts at 
shows the matter as it is presented simply amounts to a divergence 
of opinion between officially appointed adjudicators and self-con¬ 
stituted revisers, the latter frequently condemning the former for 
not judging by points ; while the complainants fail to send figures 
of their own as affording evidence that they have themselves 
tested the accuracy of the awards carefully and systematically. 
In some cases we know they have not. Conclusions have often 
been arrived at in five minutes quite opposite to those of the 
adjudicators, who after infinite pains have estimated the value of 
every bloom, and recorded the results in their pocketbooks. It is 
desirable when allegations are made of the negligence or incapacity 
of judges that evidence'should be submitted to show that protests 
are well founded, or at least presented in a manner in which 
their value can be tested. They should then receive the attention 
of officials, and if transmitted in temperate language, as all protests 
should be, are not likely to be ignored by the Press, as accuracy 
in the awards at exhibitions is a matter of great public importance. 
A case to hand, and a very remarkable one it seems to be, 
enables us to show that the Journal of Horticulture will not deny 
publicity to a clearly presented instance of alleged errors in appor¬ 
tioning prizes at shows. If the writer of the following letter has 
made no mistake, we have a case of judging the judges, such as is 
altogether uncommon, and a verdict of guilty of incapacity 
entered against them by the secretary of the society as authorised 
by its committee of management. After approving generally of 
the remarks of “ Secretary,” on page 469 last week, our correspon¬ 
dent proceeds as follows : — 
Perhaps you will permit me to give an instance of misjudgment, 
which you will agree must be hard for certain exhibitors to bear. In a 
No. 702.—VoL. XXVII., Third Series. 
northern show a silver cup, valued at £20, given by the city, was offered 
as a first prize for forty-eight blooms of Japanese Chrysanthemums in at 
least thirty-six varieties. After the awards were allotted to the different 
stands, two of the competitors handed in a written protest to the 
Secretary of the Show against what they considered misjudgment. The 
Committee so far entertained the protest as to appoint a competent 
expert to " point ” the different stands, and he gave his verdict as below 
First prize collection 
Second „ 
Third „ 
Fourth „ 
» 
n 
150 points. 
126 
159 
157 
II 
II 
II 
The Secretary afterwards told the “ protesters ” that the Committee 
acknowledged the misjudgment, but owing to a clause in the rules— 
namely, “ The decision of the Judges is final,” nothing could be done in 
the matter. When such cases as these happen is it not a duty to bring 
them before the public ? And if societies will have such a decisive rule in 
their schedules, ought not they to make sure that the judges appointed 
are competent men in whom competitors can repose confidence? I 
consider one of the most important matters, as affecting the success of 
any society, rests in the ability and integrity of its judges. I would also 
suggest that the Judges wherever the contest is close be asked to hand 
to the Secretary the number of “ points ” recorded for the different 
entries, and not to be satisfied with verdicts arrived at from a bird’s-eye 
view of the exhibits. 
It will be conceded that the case, as it stands, is a remarkable 
one. Our correspondent sends us his name and address, and is 
evidently convinced of the accuracy of his statements. Whether 
the officials of the Show have a different version of the case to 
place before the public remains to be seen. Our pages are open 
to any counter statement or explanation, and if neither is forth¬ 
coming the public will naturally conclude that the above record 
is substantially correct. What does it mean ? It means un¬ 
doubtedly that the Judges are found guilty of incompetence ; but 
that is not all, for the Committee in condemning the Judges 
condemn themselves, as they are responsible for the appointment 
of adjudicators and the justice of their awards. The existence 
of the rule, behind which it is said they (the Committee) have 
sought shelter, is, in effect, a declaration that the Judges are so 
competent that they are empowered to act for the Committee on 
a determinate point. They are, in fact, delegates of the Com¬ 
mittee, entrusted with carrying out its object of doing justice to 
all. “The decision of the Judges shall be final,” means that it 
is the decision of the Committee recorded by men they have 
appointed for that definite purpose. If committees are not 
satisfied with the work of their judges, they can there and then 
supersede them and appoint others, the verdicts of the former 
being declared null and void if this is done, and the prize cards 
withdrawn before the public are admitted to a show. If the 
awards are “ published,” as they are when disclosed to the public 
at the appointed time for admittance, then we think those to 
whom the prizes have been awarded can claim them, even if the 
judgments are wrong ; but there is no claim on the judges, but 
only on the committee, and the members of a committee are 
personally and severally responsible to exhibitors for errors com¬ 
mitted by their delegates. This, we believe, represents both the 
law and equity of the whole matter. 
In the extraordinary case in question the Committee is said to 
have appointed a “ competent expert ” to point the blooms, and 
it is implied that his figures were accepted as correct. He, 
therefore, was the final judge. But what about the judges first 
appointed ? Were they not competent experts ? It seems to be 
admitted by the Secretary they were not. Why, then, were they 
appointed ? If the figures above published are those which 
the Committee accepted as correct when admitting the mis¬ 
judgment, then indeed is injustice done to two exhibitors, for 
we have this strange anomaly :— 
A, Third prize with 
B, Fourth „ „ 
C, First „ „ 
D, Second ,, „ 
159 points. 
157 
150 
126 
II 
11 
II 
This anomaly is only explainable by remembering that the 
positions of the competitors were determined by the appointed 
No. 2358.—VoL. LXXXIX. Old Series. 
