The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1881-09-30
THAT SHEEP AWARD.
Albert Chapman makes Criticisms ON his
Critics.

Apcrt chapman makes Criticisms on III
Critics.
EDITOR REGIhTER:-I ask space Il
make statement of facts in relation Il
an article In last weeks Register refer
ring TO the awards on sheep at the Stat,
fair-facts that are necessary 10 q ful
understanding of the case.
| L do not care to notice or reply &c
charges and false statements made by
papers whose erratic and semi-occas
ional issues are dependent upon the pay
received for fulsome praises, or the
larger sums received for vilifying 9th
| ers, but think the better class of papers
have done injustice in not fully under.
standing and publishing all the facts in
the case.
In the first place, l was not placed
upon one of the committees on merino
sheep at my own instance, or even with
my knowledge or wishes. In the sec
ond place, did not seek TO procure q
prize TO any sheep or flock in which ]
had any pecuniary interest or owner
ship. And here let me say, that how
the awards of the gold medal to the
breeders and owners of a flock in which
L happened TO own half interest in one
of the twenty sheep competing for it,
could be OF any great glory or benefit
to me is something cannot understand,
and must, l think, require to discover
it the help of as powerful glasses as are
needed to find the comets now dancing
about in the heavens, or the inspiration
derived from copious draughts of those
subtle fluids that are procured in de-
fiance of law, and from which was gen.
Grated much of the steam and misre-
presentation that was so freely blown
of on Thursday and Friday of the fair
week at Montpelier.
In the third place, l was not i'm favor
nf awarding the gold modal to the flock
in which owned one-fortieth inter-
est, but it was my judgment that anoth-
er HOOK was entitled to the prize; and
yet when L see these sheep of Messrs.
Hall, in competing for the other prizes
with sheep from the other flocks that
competed for the gold medal, drawing
from three different committees four
first prizes, or four times as many as
either of the other competing flocks,
am obliged TO confess that my judgment
against them may not have been cor
rect, and that although they lacked the
perfect fitting and elaborate finish of
some of the other flocks, they must have
been good flock, and may have de-
served the award of the first committee.
In the fourth place, made no argu-
ment before the directors to induce
them to confirm the award of the first
committee neither at four O'Clock in the
as one paper had it, nor al
any other time. At their request /
went before them on Thursday evening
and made plain statement of the facts
of the case so far as had any knowl-
edge of them, but cannot now remem.
Der that anything 1 said in that state
nent could be construed into an argu-
ment in favor of sustaining the first
award, but believed then, as / after
wards expressed myself to several of
them, that | did not see how they could
do otherwise than set the award aside
on technical grounds, and that | APP
proved their action. But il is little
strange that with all the enterprise
exhibited by the different reporters,
none should have ascertained and pub
lished the fact that when President
Chase put the question, he coupled il
with the provision that no reelection
was thereby cast upon any of the COM
mittce.
In regard to the action of the second
the two who acted were
good judges, and no doubt awarded the
medal to the flock they conscicntiously
believed were entitled to it, and have
no criticism to offer on their decision
but so long as these awards are made
OH the individual preferences of Judges
for some particular points of excellence,
that may not be considered as import
ant by other and equally good judges,
instead of by an intelligent application
Of good scale of puints TO Determine
the best, we Eshall have these differing
and divergent decisions, sure to be
criticised and give dissatisfaction to
This will necessarily be the
case so long as every crow thinks her
offspring is the blacklist, or some stan
dard for determining excellence is not
adopted by our agricultural societies.
l will only add to this already too
long communication, that have often
acted on committees at our State fairs,
but until the present time have never
heard any complaint or criticism of my
action, while on the other hand, be-
lievc this gold medal on merino sheep
has rarely or never been awarded with
out more or less criticism and dissatis-
faction. ALBERT CHAPMAN.