28 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
January  14,  1897. 
DISQUALIFICATION  AT  SHOWS. 
Mr,  J.  McIntosh  has,  on  behalf  of  the  Ancient  Society  of  York 
Florists,  sent  ns  a  very  courteous  letter,  also  a  schedule  which  was 
provided  for  the  guidance  of  exhibitors  and  Judges  of  the  Bhow  held  at 
York  on  November  18th,  19th,  and  20th,  1896.  Mr.  McIntosh  states 
that  the  schedule  was  not  intentionally  withheld,  but  it  was  thought 
that  the  parties  more  particularly  interested  in  the  discussion  would 
have  sent  a  copy  as  sustaining  their  views.  The  conclusion  was  a 
reasonable  one,  and  we  accept  Mr.  McIntosh’s  statement  uncondition¬ 
ally.  It  is  right  to  add,  however,  that  since  our  intimation  on  page  13 
last  week  Mr.  Riddell  has  sent  a  schedule,  with  the  class  marked  over 
which  the  dispute  arose,  and  the  same  class  is  also  indicated  by  Mr- 
McIntosh.  We  are  quite  sure  that,  as  this  correspondent  states,  “the 
York  Society  has  no  desire  to  conceal  anything  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  conceived 
that  anyone  concerned  can  have  any  such  desire.” 
We  had  not  thought  of  making  any  further  reference  to  the  York 
case  at  present  (in  fact  we  could  not  usefully  do  so  in  the  absence  of  a 
schedule),  but  as  Mr.  McIntosh  clearly  intimates  that  the  York  Society, 
as  well  as  readers  of  the  Journal  of  Horticulture  generally,  desire  an 
editorial  opinion,  the  case  shall  be  discussed  with  the  same  honesty  of 
conviction  which  we  believe  has  governed  the  acts  and  expressions  of 
all  parties  immediately  concerned. 
Mr.  McIntosh  desires  to  “  point  out  the  main  facts  bearing  on  the 
Society’s  view  of  the  question,”  and  he  does  so  with  accuracy  as  follows — 
“  In  class  63  nine  varieties  of  Apples  and  six  varieties  of  Pears  are 
simply  mentioned  ”  (meaning  that  any  varieties  might  be  staged). 
Class  60  asks  for  “  three  varieties  of  dessert  and  three  varieties  of  baking 
Apples.”  Class  59,  for  “  six  Apples,  dessert  ;  ”  and  class  58,  “  six 
Apples,  baking.”  It  will  be  seen  that  our  correspondent  reads  back¬ 
wards  and  upwards. 
Mr.  McIntosh  then  goes  on  to  say,  as  he  is  fully  entitled,  “  We  (the 
Society)  maintain  that  *according  to  custom  the  Judges  were  bound  to 
exercise  discriminating  powers  with  regard  to  the  varieties  exhibited  in 
those  classes,  except  class  63 ;  or  they  would  not  be  doing  justice  to 
exhibitors  who  were  careful  to  stage  nothing  but  what  was  in  accordance 
with  the  wording  of  the  schedule.”  That  is  a  fair  and  cogent  statement 
of  the  case  from  the  Society’s  view,  and  it  could  not  well  be  put  more 
strongly. 
It  is  not  in  any  of  those  classes  over  which  the  dispute  arose,  but  in 
cIbbs  57,  thus  set  forth — “  Collection  of  dessert  fruit,  Bix  distinct  varie¬ 
ties,  to  consist  of  two  bunches  each  of  two  varieties  of  Grapes,  two 
dishes  of  Pears,  and  two  dishes  of  Apples.”  Mr.  J.  Riddell  included  in 
hi*  collection  a  dish  of  Emperor  Alexander  Apple,  and  the  Judges,  as 
able  gardeners  and  upright  men  as  could  be  found,  “  disqualified  ”  the 
collection,  but  recommended  a  grant  equal  to  the  second  prize,  £1.  We 
find  no  words  in  the  schedule  authorising  them  to  do  so.  Regulation  12 
says,  “Judges  have  the  power  of  withholding  or  diminishing  prizes  where 
specimens  are  considered  unworthy,  and  their  decisions  shall  be  final.” 
But  here  the  specimens  were  admittedly  worthy,  and  because  of  that  the 
Judges  even  went  beyond  the  “wording  ”  of  the  schedule  in  their  desire 
to  do  substantial  justice  to  the  exhibitor.  This  is  sufficient  proof  of  the 
genuineness  of  their  intentions. 
That  they  were  not  within  the  terms  of  the  schedule  is  clear  from 
what  follows  in  the  same  “regulation” — namely,  “The  Judges  may 
recommend  to  the  Committee  extra  prizes  for  collections  of  decided 
merit  not  specified  in  the  schedule.”  The  italics  are  ours  ;  and  the 
specimens  which  they,  in  the  best  spirit,  desired  to  honour  were  very 
clearly  “  specified.” 
Now  as  to  the  finality  of  the  Judges’  decision.  This  did  not  extend 
beyond  the  “  withholding  of  or  diminishing  prizes.”  Regulation  13  makes 
that  point  clear,  for  it  states,  “  If  any  dispute  arise  notice  must  be  given 
to  the  Secretary  in  writing  on  the  first  show  day,  before  9  o’clock  p.m., 
when  the  case  will  be  submitted  to  the  Committee,  whose  decision  shall 
be  final.”  It  is  not  a  case  of  may,  but  must ,  and  if  Mr.  Riddell  did  not 
act  in  strict  conformity  with  that  “regulation  ”  he  put  himself  out  of 
court ;  if  he  did  so  act  and  the  decision  went  against  him,  he  must 
accept  the  verdict  of  the  Committee. 
We  wish  next  to  say  a  word  on  “  disqualification.”  In  our  experience 
those  judges  who  do  not  act  at  two,  three,  or  half  a  dozen  shows  only 
a  year,  but  at  dozens,  are  exactly  those  who  are  the  most  cautious  in 
writing  that  (to  the  exhibitor)  humiliating  word  “  disqualified  ”  on  a 
card.  They  only  do  so  when  they  have  evidence  of  intention  to  deceive 
on  the  part  of  a  competitor,  then  they  do  it  in  bold  letters.  When  an 
exhibitor  has,  by  accident  or  oversight,  put  himself  beyond  the  condi¬ 
tions,  the  milder  formula  is  used,  “  not  in  accordance  with  the  schedule,” 
thus  stating  a  fact  without  conveving  a  reproach.  They  are,  indeed, 
often  more  lenient  still  with  exhibits,  and  do  what  the  York  schedule 
enjoins  in  italics  in  reference  to  incorrectly  named  specimens — namely, 
“ pass  them  over  without  observation ,”  and  leave  the  showmen  (who 
have  not  sought  to  do  wrong)  to  find  out  the  reason  why.  If  an  exhibitor 
is  “  in  accordance  with  the  schedule,”  whence  comes  the  right  of 
disqualification  ? 
As  to  the  admissibility  of  the  particular  Apple  in  the  class  above 
specified,  that  is,  and  must  be,  a  question  of  individual  opinion.  If  a 
gardener  regularly  include  it.  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  in  a  dessert, 
as  we  know  it  has  been  many  times  and  oft  so  employed,  we  cannot 
say  he  does  any  wrong  in  including  a  dish  of  it  in  a  collection  of 
dessert  fruits  at  a  show,  if  not  specially  excluded.  We  have  seen 
it  included  and  weaken  a  collection  without  causing  disqualification,  as 
there  was  no  infringement  of  the  terms  of  the  schedule. 
We  have  previously  said  that  with  two  lists  of  Apples  only  we  should 
place  Emperor  Alexander  in  the  cooking  section  ;  but  at  the  same  time, 
as  it  is  unquestionably  employed  in  desserts,  we  should  not  disqualify  a 
collection  for  containing  it  if  within  the  conditions,  but  should  “  point  ” 
it  “  low  ”  in  comparison  with  superior  varieties. 
To  a  greater  extent  than  ever  the  imposing  appearance  of  fruits  is 
considered  an  essential  element  in  desserts.  Tables  have  to  be  made 
beautiful  with  fruits  as  well  as  with  plants  and  flowers,  as  leading 
fruiterers  know  quite  well.  Very  small  Apples  and  Pears,  however 
good,  are  relegated  to  side  tables  ;  the  delicious  Frontignan  Grapes  have 
been  ousted  by  the  finer-looking  but  far  inferior  Alicantes  and 
“  Colmans,”  and  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  has  condemned  the 
many  miserable  little  Melons  seen  at  shows  by  imposing  a  minimum 
circumference  of  15  inches. 
It  was  because  of  the  inclusion  of  the  Apple  in  question  in  many 
desserts,  mainly  for  its  beauty,  that  Dr.  Hogg  in  the  last  edition  of  his 
“  Fruit  Manual  ”  admitted  it  as  “  desirable  ”  on  that  account  on  the 
dinner  table  ;  though  stating  it  to  be  more  of  a  culinary  than  a  dessert 
fruit.  No  person  living  has  given  so  much  attention  to  the  subject  of 
fruit,  and  no  one  has  described  so  many  varieties,  their  history,  and  their 
uses  so  accurately.  It  is  true  that  a  certain  D.D.  has  gone  out  of 
his  way,  in  a  contemporary,  to  indulge  in  a  cheap  sneer  at  the  work  of 
the  venerable  Doctor,  who  has  by  sixty  years  of  study  and  research  done 
something  to  enlighten  even  this  doctor  of  divinity,  who  found  his 
peculiar  exercise  congenial  at  this  particular  time ;  but  it  will  do  no 
harm — at  least  to  our  Doctor. 
We  have  consulted  Dr.  Hogg  on  this  Emperor  Alexander  case.  “It 
is  but  an  old  question,”  he  says,  “  that  has  cropped  up  again  because 
of  a  case  happening  to  get  into  print,  and  any  person  who  regularly 
uses  any  fruit  in  desserts  is  justified  in  exhibiting  it  as  a  dessert  fruit, 
no  matter  who  may  object  to  it,  always  provided  that  it  is  not  rendered 
ineligible  by  special  conditions,  which  any  society  has  a  right  to  impose. 
It  then  rests  with  the  Judges  to  estimate  its  value,  but  disqualification 
can  only  properly  follow  on  Borne  infringement  of  the  terms  of  the 
schedule  by  which  an  exhibition  is  governed.” 
The  York  Judges  did  what  some  other  good  men  would  probably  have 
done,  but  what  many  others  would  not.  But  they  acted  honestly,  with 
an  evident  desire  not  to  deal  harshly,  but  the  reverse,  with  a  collection 
they  felt  bound  to  disqualify  on  the  grounds  stated.  They  were 
convinced  they  were  right  in  their  viewB ;  the  Commitee  loyally 
sustained  them,  and  there  the  matter  ends.  It  is  clear  that  Mr.  Riddell 
had  no  “intention  to  deceive,”  and  if  the  Judges  had  been  acting 
under  the  R.H.S.  code,  they  are  far  too  intelligent  to  have 
“disqualified”  with  paragraphs  8  (page  6)  and  38  (page  12)  before 
them.  But  they  were  bound  by  neither  that  nor  any  code,  and 
exercised  their  discriminatory  and  discretionary  powers,  as  evidently 
desired  by  the  Committee. 
Given  precise  terms  of  guidance,  we  know  enough  of  the  professional 
ability  and  high  sense  of  honour  of  the  Judges  in  question  to  enable  us 
to  say  that  we  should  not  hesitate  a  moment  in  entrusting  any  garden 
produce  of  ours  to  their  examination  and  for  their  decision,  and  their 
verdict  would  be  accepted.  They  (also  Mr.  Riddell)  will  have  done 
good  service  if  some  definite  and  authoritative  line  of  action  should 
be  formulated  as  the  result  of  this  discussion,  and  we  hope  with  Mr. 
McIntosh  that  such  will  be  the  case.  Though  no  harm  has  been  done, 
as  no  one  believes  Mr.  Riddell  would  attempt  to  do  anything  wrong, 
and  the  desire  of  the  Judges  was  evidently  to  do  justice,  we  think 
the  word  “disqualified”  was  rather  too  strong  to  use  under  the 
circumstances. 
We  should  like  to  make  it  clear  that  we  have  no  reason  whatever  to 
suppose  if  the  matter  had  been  submitted  to  the  R.H.S.  the  decision 
