Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4941, 23 January 1877, Page 3

i 1 '■ [advertisement.] TO THE EDITOR OF THE NKyV ZEALAND TIMES. V s Sib, -4An extensive correspondence between the Secretary of, the Wairarapa Agricultural and Paltdral Association arid Mr.’ GeorgeHunter,i with ;replies to the latter ,Jhy M>. .George Beetbam and Mr. Rookel, has lately appeared in your columns., As a member o.f' the association, and aa one of the judges who acted in the Cotswold and Komney Marsh classes at the late show, kindly allow me space for a reply to some of his misstatements, several of which have been noticed by ypur, other correspondents. Should you think to deny this, I am quite willing to pay for its insertion. I I : As Mr. H. Beetham’s letter of complaint heads the list, let me begin with it.- There seems, toj be an impression, as evidenced by Mr, George Beetham’s letters, and others, that Mr,Hunter | complied with the association’s rule attached to the programme for that year, that pedigrees of shorthorns must accompany entries, Enchanter's pedigree , never made its appearance till it was fixed.on the rails where he was penned, when there was no time to go into its details. . All the information sent with his entry was, that. he was a shorthorn, with the names of his sire and dam, which was no clue -without their respective Herd Book numbers. Why did Mr. Hunter not comply with the above-mentioned rule ? If he fails to explain this the public of Wairarapa will be quite justified in thinking that he was well aware the pedigree, read in the light of his advertisement, would scarcely stand a close scrutiny, and so concluded that the less time for it the better.

He must be well aware bow careful the editor of the “ Canterbury Herd Book ” —the only public Herd Book for which Bnchauter is eligible—is to call special attention to any number in an animal’s pedigree having reference to an entry in its own columns, but not admissible into Coates’ or the “ New Zealand Herd Book.” The same pra:tiee is invariably followed by Canterbury stud stock-breeders, and I think you must agree with me that to act otherwise could be called nothing short of wilful misrepresentation. If Mr. Hunter wished to place his bull fairly before the public, why did he not follow such a good example ? Why did he advertise him as a pure-bred shorthorn ? Perhaps he will also be able to explain why Enchanter at the late show, fit for use in the herd, was sold for £2B, whereas in 1875, as a calf, he brought £so—a difference of • more than fifty per cent., the year’s keep being considered. It may interest him to know what the verdict of the public here is—that in 1876 he was sold under his true colors ; in 1875, just the reverse. With ridiculous egotism he refers to his past successes at Wairarapa shows and the jealousy of Messrs. Beetham and others here. The records • of the association prove that were he to stake the cup he so much coveted upon thej number of points he has scored for the last five years, he would still be the loser by a good many points as against Messrs. Beetham, notwithstanding the fact that he has been an exhibitor in at least three classes of sheep, besides cattle, horses, and pigs, while Messrs. Beetham have rarely exhibited in more than one class of sheep. His ability to boast of. having won the greatest number of first prizes at the late show he owes to his pigs. Confining the test to stock where he and Messrs. Beetham really come into competition -—sheep and cattle —they score eight firsts, and he only seven, although he owes two, of these to Cotswolds, in which Messrs. Beetham were .not competitors. One .more fact. Out of nitie firsts'gained by, him in 1875 five were without competition.. So much for the successes’ of a long established stud stock breeder, and-the jealousy of those who do not profess to be anything more than beginners. He charges the association with altering this year’s prize'list "and* conditions of entry, thereby giving'local exhibitors undue advantage. There can 1 be no doubt the alterations were made at too late a date, but he was treated in no' exceptional way. The secretary’s postagebook proves that the altered list was posted to him; in common with others concerned, on the 3rd; November. Only two exhibitors were present at the meeting when the alterations were made, his peculiar aversion—the - Messrs. Beetham—being absent. The next item- is Mr/' Lowes’ ram, of the disqualification of which Mr. Hunter says, “ What can be thought Of men appointed to act as judges when they refused to allow him to compete simply because he was so much better than, any other animal exhibited in the classes 33 to 40, Eomney Marsh. It was to all intents and purposes a pure-bred animal, and took a first prize at the Christchurch show held as recently as the 9th November ; but because it was so uhmistakeably superior, .the men appointed as judges doubted whether it was what it was represented to be and actually was, • and disqualified it.” It would seem a waste of time to bandy words with a man capable of making such remarks about a lot of sheep of which it was impossible for him to have' any personal knowledge. It is also amusing to stockowners like myself and fellow-judges to be snubbed by gentlemen like Mr. Hunter,'whose occupations—not to say hobbies—are so numerous that they -have failed to master any one in particular, much less the one at present in question. Mr. Hunter has been accused by Mr. Beetham of making a false statement in the course, of; this correspondence, which he has failed to disprove, notwithstanding his ingenious attempt in his letter.which appears in your issue of the Srd 'inSt. Let me add another to the list. We'did. not disqualify upon the ground he states, but because he was so unmistakeably Lincoln in character that there was no perceptible difference between his wool, for in.stan.ce, and that of the best Lincolns on the show i ground, I ‘can give him a few more -facts about the same sheep if he wishes for them. ■ As to his assertion about the ram being 1 pure bred Romney -Marsh, I have no reason to doubt the fact beyond the appearance of the sheep; but with the memory of his bulf calf “Enchanter” fresh in my mind,! heg.td decline hia die turn, on the. subject... One more correction of Mr. 'Hunter and I have done, i He is quite wrong in his version of what took place between his man and myself. Mr. MoMaster asked me what Mr. Beetham was judging, as Mr. McKay was making complaints of his being amongst the sheep. I replied that in company with Mr. Stillborn and myself he was judging in the Romney and Cotswold classes, in which Messrs. Beetham had no exhibits, upon which .lie remarked it’s all right, and walked away. : I did not then, as stated by Mr. Hunter, go to Mr.!McKay and tell him he had no right -to' interfere. Mr. McKay was standing some distance off, and upon my happening to look his way he lifted his band in ( a threatening manner and called • out, “ Look out; I m watching you.” I angrily replied that he, had no right to interfere with the judges, and that he ought to. be ashamed of himself. . Mr. Hunter’s addition, that I told him Mr. Beetham was a member of committee and could go where he pleased* is his own invention. I did not mention Mr. Beetham’s name, nor say anything beyond what I • have stated.—l am., &0., ■' W. C. Buchanan. Carterton, January 6.