Competing for Sweepstake Prizes.

Our readers will remember that we last week made mention of a change in the sweepstakes rings at the next Illinois State Fair. This was a slight error. The change was made with reference to the Fat Stock Show. In this connection we present the argument of Hon. John P. Reynolds, on the subject before the board and which governed the board in its action.

THE ARGUMENT.

To the State Board of Agriculture.

Gentlemen.—The undersigned, Superintendent of class A., respectfully submits the following report for the past year, including the fair in September, and the Fat Stock Show in November.

THE FAIR.

It was perfectly apparent to any one familiar with the displays of previous years in this department, that the breeding of fine cattle in this country is, at the present time, attracting the attention and commanding the best and most intelligent care of not alone the farmers who have been bred to their avocation, but of capitalists, who comprehend the great money values involved, and who either of themselves or through their sons have set out to identify themselves with this great interest. As the result of the fact the display of cattle was more varied as to breeds and greater as to number, if not superior as to quality, than at any fair, while the visitors in attendance seeking to purchase and studying the question of breeds with a view to purchase for breeding purposes, were never so numerous nor so much in earnest.

Under such circumstances, it may easily be imagined that the awards of prizes, not for the money value of the prizes themselves, but for the bearing of such honors upon the interests of exhibitors in regard to sales, assumed an unusual importance and involved a corresponding responsibility on the part of this board. Impressed, as I think, with a proper sense of that responsibility, and of the embarrassment which always surround that position, as your representative I discharged the duty to the best of my ability.

The most serious and perhaps, the only embarrassment which I should refer to in this report, was the absence of so large a proportion of the members of awarding committees originally selected, rendering it necessary to fill the places of the absentees by selections from the by-standers after the cattle had been called to the rings. Some of you "have been there" and have a realizing sense of the difficulties involved in the effort to make these substitutions intelligently and with conscientious care, on the spur of the moment. To do so in all cases with satisfaction to one's self is simply impossible, and to do it in all cases with satisfaction to unlucky competing exhibitors is not to be expected. If I could do the first and feel sure that the talisman had been wisely selected, it would be easy to disregard complaints, if any, which are known to be unjust.

The question of so modifying our committee system as to avoid the embarrassment I have referred to and thus to secure a better deserved confidence in the justice of the awards is one I hope to hear discussed at this meeting as it has been probably at every meeting of our predecessors for the past thirty years.

Possibly we are in the light of our own experience, with a different system at the Fat Stock Shows prepared to try something else at the fairs; but of this I do not feel certain.

THE FAT STOCK SHOW.

The remarks I have made in regard to the display at the fair and the great interest it excited apply with, if possible, still greater force to the Fat Stock Show. Your record shows all material facts in respect to numbers and quality of the stock on exhibition, and I need not enlarge.

The importance of this enterprise, in its relation to the meat supply of the world, can hardly be over-stated, and its direct results to the producers of the meat producing breeds of stock as well as to the consumers, are too apparent to require discussion.

The rules and methods adopted by the board for conducting this show seems to need but little change—some slight modifications of the requirements of the premium list will be proposed when that subject shall come up for consideration, but beyond these there is but one subject which I regard as of sufficient importance to demand a suggestion from me at this time. I refer to the number of and division of duties among the awarding committees.

The method of selecting judges seems to me all right and there was much less difficulty in securing their attendance than at the fair. A few did not respond, but their places were filled satisfactorily in most cases. The wisdom of the appointment of your committee to decide upon the age of all animals on exhibition, prior to the commencement of the work of the judges and entirely independent of any suggestion or wish on the part of exhibitors, was practically demonstrated so that there is probably now no desire to discontinue it. In this case their discussions corroborated and established the statements and good faith of the exhibitors themselves in every instance except one, in which one the result was unimportant.

The special feature to which I desire to call your attention may perhaps be best understood if I express my own views in regard to it.

At present it is the practice for one committee of judges to make the awards on the animals of each breed in their several rings of yearlings, two-year-olds, and three-year-olds. After that has been done it is the practice for another committee to select the sweepstakes animals from among all the entries of all ages of that breed without regard to the prizes which the former committee may have awarded.

Now it not infrequently happens, and is always liable to occur, that the latter committee selects as the best animal of any age one which the former committee did not deem worthy of any prize at all or at least not a first prize, when judged by them in competition with these of its own age only. Evidently there is a mistake somewhere. Both decisions can not be correct. Both committees, we are bound to assume are equally honest, disinterested, and competent, because the members of both committees considered in making up a decision such discrepancy of judgment and the system which renders it possible may be almost excusable, perhaps, but in the Fat Stock Show, where we deal so fully in details and exact figures, and where we pretend to use our best efforts in every practical manner to get at and publish for the benefit of a confiding world the reliable, bottom facts obtained by the labors of paid experts, reach a conflicting record is not, in any judgement, one to be greatly proud of.

There is one plain, just and proper remedy for this, to wit: Restrict the award of sweepstakes prizes in the several breed rings to such animals as have taken first premiums in the rings for ages, and restrict competition for grand sweepstakes to such animals as have taken sweepstake prizes in the breed rings as have not otherwise competed at all. The awards of all special prizes should follow the decisions in the regular rings when not offered for animals not included in the regular rings.

Under this rule every animal competing for a sweepstakes prize, with possible exceptions in the grand sweepstakes, would have received the highest indorsement of the committees, and hence there could be no pretense of prejudice on the part of the judges and hence, too, it would matter very little whether a new competent committee were called for the grand sweepstakes or that committee was composed of judges who served in the rings, the latter, in my opinion, being preferable, because of their larger opportunity in becoming familiar with the points of difference between the competing animals.

I am persuaded that no objection to the remedy as I have stated it, would or could properly be made except by those whose animals were not included in the first prize or sweepstakes winners, and the only objection I have ever heard to the adoption of the rule, even at the fairs, is based on the idea that those animals (or the owners) failing to take prizes in the rings for ages, should have a "new trial" before an entirely new jury in sweepstakes. But how about those who won the verdict in the first trial! Is there any justice in requiring them to submit to another trial between themselves and those they have once vanquished? and if there is any propriety in that, why not in still another new trial and more new trials before new juries until every animal in the show has received a first prize, or the treasury has been exhausted or the community fails to furnish any more jurymen?

If it were simply the "consolation stakes" to non-prize winners, some loose practice might seem justifiable, but it is not the best policy in conducting the competitions of the Fat Stock Show to be influenced by any considerations except those which relate to fair, impartial and intelligent decisions, and no decisions can be fair, impartial and intelligent which conflict with each other and which, as a whole, fail to form a consistent record.

John P. Reynolds, Supt. Class A.

James F. Scott purchased 200 mares and 500 one and two year old colts to be delivered on the 15th of March at the San Antonio Viego ranch.