Feb. 9 , 1907 .] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
2 3 1 
1 
' 
J 
i 
> 
1 
t 
j 
r 
I 
The most accurate and reliable cartridges are the U. S M as proven by careful tests made by the 
U. S. Government experts. 
MANUFACTURED BY 
UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE CO., 
LOWELL. MASS.. U. S. A. 
Agencies: 497-503 Pearl St., 35-43 Park St., New York. 114-116 Market St., San Francisco. 
Team shoot, 50 targets: 
Moonlight Musketeers. 
F B Stephenson.47 
F W Moffett.38 
C A Lockwood.42 
A E Hendrickson.. .41 
W C Damron.40—208 
Field Team. 
A G Southworth.. .40 
O C Grinnell.39 
E H Lott.47 
J J Keyes.38 
L C Hopkins.35—200 
Shoot for cup, 50 targets: 
First 25. Second 25. 
A __ A 
r 
H. 
B. 
T. 
' H. 
B. 
T. 
Total, 
C A Lockwood. 
. 3 
18 
21 
3 
21 
24 
45 
F W Moffett. 
. 0 
21 
21 
0 
19 
19 
40 
F B Stephenson. 
. 0 
17 
17 
0 
18 
18 
35 
A E Hendrickson. 
. 4 
15 
19 
4 
17 
21 
40 
W C Damron. 
12 
14 
2 
16 
18 
32 
New York City Cup. 
Ossining, N. Y., Feb. 2. —Editor Forest and Stream: At 
just about this season of each year there appears a com- 
municatioe frc.m Mr. Banks about the New York State 
Cup. This is always supplemented by you, in which you 
pour hot shot into the New York Sportsmen’s Associa¬ 
tion for not featuring the New York State Individual 
Championship Cup. 
The reason, as set forth in the 1907 arraignment in 
your last issue, seems to be a certain $25 which the club 
holding the shoot is supposed to hand out to the win¬ 
ner of the cup, but doesn’t. I cannot see how this 
would affect the case at all. The cup is passed on from 
year to year without it. Clubs are attacked for trying to 
make profits out of State tournaments. Why should 
they not? Clubs, for the most part, have nominal dues, 
and it is necessary for them to make profits from their 
targets 
The more logical reason for non-interest in the State 
Cup would seem to me to be the old fight against trade 
representatives. I have no way of ascertaining, but will 
wager that the trophy has been won many more times 
by professionals than amateurs. The ordinary amateur 
concedes high average to the man who is paid to demon¬ 
strate his skill at the traps, before the tournament begins. 
At Buffalo last year an amateur came within a couple 
of targets of landing the trophy, and not knowing the 
rules governing the competition, was very indignant 
that it was awarded to a professional. The professional, 
by the way, was so pleased with his win that he failed 
to qualify for it with a bond, preferring to leave it in the 
custody of the Association. 
If a special 100-target event was shot on one of the 
tournament days, the prize, the championship trophy and 
$15—second high gun taking the balance of $10—more 
interest would be manifested. Entrance should be not 
more than $ 2 . 
The cup is a very handsome one, and I think Messrs. 
Banks and Waters should be commended for the interest 
they continue to manifest in it. The New York State 
shoots are always well attended, and from present indi¬ 
cations, the 1907 tournament to be held at Syracuse in 
June will be a record-breaker. 
Chas. G. Blandford, 
Sec’y N. Y. S. S. Association. 
[Mr. Blandford is an energetic and efficient secretary. 
He views matters from the standpoint of the present, 
whereas we were considering them as they pertain to 
past and present. He is secretary of the New York 
State Sportsmen’s Association, an organization which 
exists in fact. In our remarks last week we referred to 
an organization, the New York State Association for 
the Protection of Fish and Game, which existed only in 
idea; yet it was the predecessor of the present State 
Association. 
In his remarks, as set forth above, Mr. Blandford en¬ 
tirely misses the point at issue, and introduces matters 
irrelevant to it. He argues from the viewpoint of the 
local club, instead of from that of the State Associa¬ 
tion. From the average club point of view ; there is no 
reason why it should not make all the quick money it 
can on opportunity; from the State Association view¬ 
point there are many reasons for the State’s best inter¬ 
ests why the individual club should be limited in its 
cupidity. 
He is in error in his statement as to a communication 
appearing from Mr. Banks, supplemented by me, each 
year, about the New York City Cup. Last year was 
the first year that such matter appeared, and then it 
appeared because there was occasion for it. Had we 
taken the matter up each year since the cup was pre¬ 
sented, we would have had good justification, and, to 
have done our duty, probably should have done so. 
This because Mr. Banks was the one who made the cup 
possible, and as he was a member and I was chairman 
of the cup committee, and Forest and Stream was one 
of the subscribers to the cup in question, I cannot ob¬ 
serve any impropriety in calling attention to the negli¬ 
gence of clubs and also to the remissness of the 
State Association concerning it. The donors enjoined 
certain conditions governing the cup competition, all of 
which were for the good of the sport. Now, those con¬ 
ditions were observed or they were not. It is a waste 
of effort to> attempt to prove that the State Association, 
as a moral or business proposition, should have lived up 
to its business obligations. If it is exempt from any 
responsibility, then all contention in respect to the cup’s 
treatment falls to the ground instantly. 
Mr. Blandford maintains that the cup, as it relates to 
the default concerning the $25 mentioned in the deed of 
gift “passed from year to year without it.” Is not that 
a frank confession of Association inefficiency and in¬ 
difference? Each of such acts was a wrong, alike to the 
donors and to the State contestants, and the sum total of 
those wrongs do not make a right. However, they do 
cast a very clear illumination on Association methods of 
the past. 
Mr. Blandford asks why the clubs should not make a 
profit out of the State tournaments? There is a distinc¬ 
tion between a reasonable • profit and one which is not. 
In any event, the State Association was not organized 
and supported for the purpose of filling the treasuries of 
rapacious or indigent local clubs. When a member of 
the Association holds a State shoot for the sole purpose 
of transferring the largest possible amount of money 
from the pockets of the shooters into the club treasury 
and to solicit unlimited merchandise and donations for 
the same purpose, why not, in all honesty, so declare in 
its prospectus and programmes, instead of exploiting 
good fellowship, a good time, and wealth to be amassed 
by all who shoot? 
We never questioned the right of a club to make 
money on its targets. That is a perfectly legitimate 
source of revenue. We, hovever, do earnestly maintain, 
and reiterate it now, that there is no justification for the 
acquirement of a lot of valuable merchandise solicited 
ostensibly for the benefit of the shooters, but in reality 
for the club treasury. The donor, as a rule, is ap¬ 
proached on the plea of sportsmanship and benefits to 
himself; the shooter is approached on plea of a fixed 
sum for the privilege of a chance to win the donations. 
Such thrift and mendicancy are unworthy the name of 
sportsmanship. 
Mr. Blandford states: “I have no way of ascertaining, 
but will wager that the trophy has been won many more 
times by professionals than amateurs.” Mr. Blandford 
is the most energetic secretary the Association has had 
in years, yet he here confesses, with the utmost non¬ 
chalance, that he has no way of ascertaining who are 
the winners of the New York City Cup. In other words, 
he has no records of it. This of itself would explain 
why the winner of it last year refused to give a bond for 
it. It had no known significance in a broad way. If he 
had it in possession, no one would know of its honors, 
its worth, its existence, or even who had won it, so 
wholly had it been ignored by the Association. In 
common fairness, aside from Association obligations, it 
would now seem to be the proper thing to secure a list 
of the winners at the earliest possible moment. 
In line with this, as Mr. Blandford has had a broad 
experience, I am sure that the readers of Forest and 
Stream would be much beholden to him if he will 
frankly and without evasion, answer the following 
questions: 
Why should a number of gentlemen, who, in their in¬ 
dividual capacity, would scorn to ask for donations to 
their larder or business stock, assume a policy which 
trenches on pauperism when they combine into a gun 
club? This directly refers to begging or soliciting dona¬ 
tions, or obtaining them under the shadow of a boycott. 
Why should not a lot of gentlemen, who band together 
for sport, pay for their own sport? Why should they 
invoke the broad name of sportsmanship, to build their 
plant, add to their treasury, or seek charity in any way? 
This refers to direct solicitation—a more euphemistic 
term than the begging—of “donations.” 
Should a State shoot justify extraordinary methods to 
add to the holding club’s revenues? or should it be for 
the promotion and upbuilding of sportsmanship at large? 
If extraordinary methods to make profits at State shoots 
