Show-Yard Judging.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2045, 15 August 1885, Page 6 (Supplement)

Show- Yard Judging.

from the Live Stock Journal. Amonost the subjects connected with the management o! agricultural societies which have lately been discussed, the eastern of show-yard judging has taken a prominent place. Apart from the question of selection, there has been a good deal of talk as to the desirability of Borne changes in the number of judges to act together, and in the manner of conducting the judging process. For many jcars the most general custom has been for ihrte judges to act together in eaota ring. This system undoubtedly has its drawbacks as well as its advantages, and, latterly, a feeling in favor of eomo alteration has been gainin c strength. In numerous cases the single judge system has been tried ; in others two judqea have been put to the work that had formerly been done by three. As will always be the casD wUh questions of the kind, there is fctill much difference of opinion as to which system is the best and most likely to ensure accurate decisions and to gain public confidence. In this oolumn, recently, we discussed the subject at some length, stating the pros and tout of the various systems which had been mentioned. In show-yard judging we regard consultation aa quite essential ; and on this account alone we have felt unable to expresa approval of the Mingle judge system. The timp-honorcd trio gives ample facility for consultation ; but it haa been considered that it docs not directly enough throw the responsibility of the decisions upon each individual judge It enables one judge to shirk tho responsibility of an unpopular award by laying the blame up^n hia two fellow jurors. " Well, you know, I was only one of three," is by no nif in uncommon remark upon occasions the kind. We have given cureful cm nation to all the various proposed changed, and we ha»o expressed our decided preference for the two judge system. Two judges are better than one, because they can consult together as to the good and bad points of the animals before them. Two are preferable to three, because there is no •' third party" upon whom to cast the blame of any unpopular award. We did not lose sight of the probability of disagreement between the two judges, and to overootne any difficulty which might arise in this way, we suggested a plan, which we are much pleased to sen is to have a trial in the coming season. This plan is, " That three judges should be appointed, but that only two should act at one time. The third would remain in the ring, but would not do any real work unless any point were referred to him by the other two. . . . Each of the three judges should take turn about as referee, or it should be decided by ballot which two should adjudicate upon each separate class." This suggested plan at once met with favour from some American sooieties, and last autumn it was tried and succeeded admirably at certain shows in the United States. At the Institute of Agriculture, in the discussion of Mr. F. Street's paper, the question of judging was touched upon, and Mr. Walter Giltjey advocated the adoption of this system. And we learn with much satisfaction that it is to be put into force at tho shows of the Highland and Agricultural Society. At a meeting of the directors of that Society, held on Wednesday of last week, Mr. M'Queen of Crofts introduced the subjeot in a motion, which would seem to have met wfth cordial approval. Ah elaborated by Mr. M'Qcekv, the new system is as follows :—": — " To appoint three judges as formerly, but have only two acting together, unless in case of difference of opinion, when the third man be called in to decide. For example — We have three judges appointed, say A, B, and C for section 1 , we ballot one out, say C ; then we have A and B to judge seotion 1, which they finish judging together, unless they differ in opinion, when Cis called in to decide between them. Then, for section 2, we have C in as one of the judges, and ballot bptween A and B. Siy B thrown out, then G and A judge section 2, and finish, unless they differ in opinion, when B h cnll»fl in to decide. Then, for section 3, i you put them all in and ballot one out, , possibly A Then 13 and C judge section 2, and so on." , It was pointed out by Mr. M Queen that '

"by this system no exhibitor can tell beforehand which two judg.M will judge apartioular section, and it will Btop all attempts to canvass or influence the judges beforehand • it will havo i<v element or Juiincqq wh'ch will commend if to exhibitors, \sh ; c'i tV present Hytrm dona not always 'To, iru l f eh judge will incir >ra jw ori'il r^.ivn-il.'lity than whfn thre^ ju-Jgfh ac 4 , as «xhib!.i'rp »nJ the nublic will know on whose bl.uiilill.? ft particular dooi"iou r.^sti." TbG directors resolved toext-'.. 1 l l i sjbtem to all elates for which thrte judges are Liame^. It was lili> win >>»'>^ii that th" di tries for the show should be closed before the judges phou'd be nominated, and that the names of fh<3 juiVr 1 ! should be pubM^hed as coon aa their aecplanoes had been received. These are important changes, and their operation will bo watched with interest. Would it not havp bppn bottnr to have the judc;pB nominated earlier, and their namoB published before entries are Policited ?