666 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 21, 1893. 
to that described. When the bracts appear the plants are placed in a 
group, filling half of one of the houses, where they produced an imposing 
effect.—G. Paerant, Ashhy Lodge Gardens, Itughy. 
JUDGES AND JUDGING. 
A New Catechism. 
As we gave prominence to a letter of an extraordinary character and 
accompanied it with pertinent comments on page 503, December 7th, 
and as the matter created much interest, we think the letter of another 
correspondent is entitled to a little more than ordinary attention in our 
columns. 
“ Berks ” writes : “ You wish me to give more information regarding 
this case. The exhibits were not pointed till the second day of the 
Exhibition. I think Mr. R. Laird’s article settles the whole question, 
with the exception of who asked this expert to point the exhibits. He 
ought to come forward and say who appointed him. I am glad you 
make the remark on my note on page 529, that you carefully refrained 
from pronouncing the judges incompetent. Then what about the 
heading of your leading article, page 508, “Judges Judged—Verdict 
Guilty.” I notice you also make remarks on Mr. R. Laird’s article, page 
530, stating you did not know the name of the society. I ask, why then 
did you send nearly every member of Committee a gratis copy of your 
Journal of December 7th, 1893 ? I regret you should publish such a 
charge against any society without making inquiry as to the truth of the 
charge.— Berks.” 
We are much obliged to “ Berks,” who takes us a step onward, and 
an important one too. If the exhibits were not pointed by the 
“ expert ” till the second day his figures can have little, or indeed no, 
weight. Perhaps the “ expert,” whose identity is not quite unknown 
to us, may, as suggested, state by whom he was engaged to point 
the blooms—the “second day?” We do not see why he should 
decline to do this, though he is at liberty to withhold his name from 
publication. 
“Berks” has evidently not read our article carefully. We have had 
far too much experience to pronounce judgment on a case after hearing 
one side only, and we should be the less likely to decide against duly 
appointed officials, because we believe that competent adjudicators are 
correct in nine cases out of ten when protests of misjudgment are 
entered ; but as even judges are human, they are liable to err occasion¬ 
ally. The correspondent whose letter we published clearly stated, “ The 
Committee so far entertained the protest as to appoint a competent 
expert to point the different stands,” and he sent us the tabulated 
results, going on to say, “ The Secretary afterwards told the ‘ protestors’ 
that the Committee acknowledged the misjudgment.” What could be 
more precise? We then said, “ If the writer of the letter had made no 
mistake,” we had a case of judging the Judges, and finding them 
guilty ; and if the allegations were true, undoubtedly that would be so. 
That is our reply to “ Berks ” on that clause in his catechism. 
We pass to another in which he not obscurely implies that we pub¬ 
lished a statement which we knew to be false. Does he appreciate the 
seriousness of his inuendo ? We stated we did not know the name of 
the Society when we published our article on December 7th. We 
neither knew it nor wanted to know it, preferring to present the subject 
on its merits as presented to us, and to guard ourselves against any 
charge of prejudice or bias on the part of persons who appear to be so 
constituted as to be unable to refrain from attributing unworthy 
motives. 
“ Berks ” conveys the impression that he has found the Editor of the 
Journal of Horticulture guilty of falsehood. That is “judging” with a 
vengeance. What are his grounds ? The sending of copies of the Journal 
of December 7th to the members of the Edinburgh Committee ! “ Berks ” 
is a gardener of great ability, intelligence, and acumen, but even he is 
liable to err, and has most assuredly erred in this case. We received a list 
of names hours after the issue was published on December 7th, for the 
very purpose of sending the copies in question, and previous to that 
neither the Edinburgh Show, nor any other show, had been mentioned 
to us. “Berks” will now see“why” they were sent. The desire that 
they should be was, however, a very proper one, as every gentleman on 
the Committee was entitled to see what was said, for the purpose of 
making any counter-statement, which we specifically promised to insert. 
We kept our promise, as “ Berks ” very well knows, not by publishing 
his note only, but a far more explicit denial by Mr. Laird of the two 
caniinal allegations of the correspondent whose letter we inserted on 
page 503. As at the moment of writing we have not received any reply 
from this correspondent to the Secretary’s letter on page 530, we 
presume he has sent his name to Mr. Laird as invited. If he has no 
reply to this gentleman, he will tacitly confess that he is guilty of false 
assertions. 
Returning to “ Berks.” He regrets we should have published the 
letter of an exhibitor, who sent his name and address, without making 
inquiry into the truth of the charges. If “ Berks ” knew as much about 
editing newspapers as he does about gardening he would not let such 
“ regrets ” trouble him. Why should we not have made roundabout 
private inquiries, and obtain documentary evidence relative to the 
accuracy of one of his own inaccurate suggestions before publishing his 
letter containing it ? On matters of public interest nothing brings out 
the truth so well as publication, and nothing so much strengthens those 
who are right in their action, and weakens those who are wrong in their 
assertions. 
Our article excited wide interest, and brought out valuable comments 
and suggestions on various phases of exhibiting—reckless protests, 
unseemly conduct by losers, judges’ qualifications and methods, show 
managers failing to comply with their own rules, with other collatera 1 
matters were discussed, all of which require thoughtful attention withe 
a view to the avoidance of errors, and making, as far as is possible, the 
shows of the future better and more agreeable to all than some of the 
past have been. 
N.B.—Just as we are preparing for press a letter arrives from the 
original complainant in this case, in which he states he intends sending 
a reply to Mr. Laird next week. We shall be obliged if he can let u.s 
receive it not later than Saturday this week, as our pages have to be 
advanced in preparation for adjournment over Christmas. 
Into the special merits or demerits of the particular case which has 
given rise to the present correspondence I do not desire to enter. I 
write simply with the object of emphatically endorsing certain remarks 
of your correspondent “ E. K.” (page 530) concerning “ judging ” iu the 
abstract. Truly, the science of judging is in a condition verging on 
chaos. No definite principles or rules exist, and the personal tastes and 
idiosyncracies of the individual judges dominate the situation of the 
moment, and offer to the exhibitor a standard which is ever varying, 
and which he can never hope to retain, even if he can grasp it. 
This essential peculiarity of “ present day ” judging was well brought 
out in your columns a few weeks ago. A correspondent and two other 
judges—not suggested to be less competent than himself—bad to judge 
Dahlias. Your correspondent took one view of the consideration which 
should influence the award of prizes, the other two judges took another 
view. Who was right I do not know, neither does it matter; but here 
we are shown that it was but a matter of chance that the majority that 
day went the one way. Possibly at a later show your correspondent 
found one of his fellow judges of his way of thinking upon the point at 
issue, and so the verdict was reversed. But here, again, we have chance 
as the dominating element, and not judging on systematic and definite 
lines, in accordance with a standard created by authority, and in the 
light of which all competitors may cultivate their flowers. 
“E. R.” suggests “that the National Chrys§,Dthemum Society should 
formulate and publish a clearly defined code of rules for the help and 
guidance of the judges, which would undoubtedly be recognised as the 
standard of all societies.” This is exactly the suggestion made by me 
in the paper on “ Judging Chrysanthemum Blooms,” read before the 
General Committee of the National Chrysanthemum Society on the 
11th inst. Until such a standard shall be created judging can never 
be completely satisfactory, even at the hands of competent judges. At 
the hands of the incompetent it becomes little better than “ confusion 
worse confounded.”— Charles E. Shea, The Elms, Foots Cray, Kent. 
Some of your capable correspondents having in my opinion given 
conclusive evidence re the two difficulties lately mentioned in the 
Journal I will not trouble you with my view. What I wish now 
mainly to refer to is “ point judging.” I have no desire to be egotistical 
when I say that during the twenty-seven years 1 have acted as a judge 
I have frequently adopted the practice as being a great help in assisting 
me to form a correct judgment on the matters before me. I learnt the 
idea from a Hampshire horticulturist, who told me he had used the 
method for many years when judging, what him and me were then 
doing—viz., cottage gardens situated in different portions of a scattered 
parish. The gentleman in question has been dead some years now, and 
was over eighty years old when he died. I mention this to show that 
judging by points is by no means a new idea. After all that has been 
and can be said in favour of point judging, it never can be mathemati¬ 
cally correct. Some people speak of it as if it were so. 
“ E. K.” (page 530) expresses my ideas best on this matter when be 
alludes to the different spec acles we weak human mortals are necessarily 
compelled to see mundane matters through. After all, point judging is 
but a help to an otherwise well balanced, well informed mind in forming 
a correct decision. I am not writing to run down point judging in the 
least, knowing full well the great value of “notes” in judgiug the 
many objects brought before the Judges at horticultural exhibitions, 
and the usually very limited time allowed them to do their work. In 
conclusion, allow me to say that the “ experts ” now so frequently 
spoken of as necessary at exhibitions will be likely in time to cause 
managers of such exhibitions much expense and trouble. Why not 
have a separate “ expert ” to judge, say, Turnips, Carrots, Cabbages, 
and Cauliflowers ? We have them for Onions and Potatoes, not to 
