Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-05-04

kentucky Wilkes. Upon the assumption
that your horse is the equal of mine as Il
sire, you propose a contest which gives
you more than three chances to my one.
AS between the three-year-olds, you
have four by Mambrino King in train
ing, and from these four you pro-
pose to pick one and to put it against the
first colt ever sired by Kentucky Wilkes,
and that one not fOaled until the last of
June, 1885. Here you want four chances
to my one. OF two-year-ods by Almont,
Jr., you have 10, while have only three
by Mambrino Dudley, foaled in the spring
of 1856, and one of these is filly, intend
ed for the stud, unbroken. Against these
three you propose to select from fifteen,
other things being equal, giving you five
chances to my one. But why do you i'm
port into the contest Almont, Jr., with
record of 2 20? There has been no issue
between any horse of mine and Almont,
Jr. |, in common with everybody else
but yourself, look upon him as horse of
developed speed having all the advan-
tages that development will give to a sire.
The issue between us was joined on Nam
brine King. Why do you wish to change
the venue from him to Almont, Jr.? |
have no desire and no taste that leads me
to trot races between colts for the mere
afford sufficient and ample opportunity
to enable me to trot my colts which can
do without subjecting myself to the i'm
putation of either Dragging or bluffing.
1t was only because you had seen fit to
assert in the most positive manner that
stations with records of 2 % or better
were not as safe and desirable to breed to
as horses having slower record or no
record at all, and proclaimed your will
lingness to demonstrate the truth of your
assertion by Il practical test, that | was
induced to make the offers that | have
made. And now, Notwithstanding the
great advantages that your proposition
gives you, will accept your challenge to
trot a three-year-old by Mambrino King
against Virginia Evans by Kentucky
Wilkes and twO-year-old by Mambrno
King against Il twO-year-old by Kentucky
Wilkes and a two-year-old by Almont,
Jr., against two-year-old by Mambrino
Dudley, provided you will accept my pro-
position heretofore made to trot num-
Der of the get of Kentucky Wilkes, foals
of SO and foals of 81, to be trotted in SO
and 80, against an equal number of the
get of Mambrno King.
but stand up, and accept or reject this
proposition.
DOES A RECORD OF 2:22 OR BETTER
HELP OR HURT SIRE:
In your last, you say that have made
no attempt to answer your argument, and
you assume that the reason why have
not is because of the difficulty of such an
undertaking. You will excuse me. Mr..
Hamlin, for saying that have read moth
ing from you on this subject that could,
except by an act of extreme politeness,
be termed an argument. have read your
assertions that stallion that has been
campaigned year after year and forced
down to Il record of , % or better. under
went vital sappng process and that
thereafter such horse was not as safe or
desirable horse to breed to as one hay
ing slower record than 2 %, or no re-
cord at all. have also read your further
assertion, which you desire to have
"printed in letters of red," that thus far
developed sires with records of = 20 or
better have proved failures, and the rea-
son of this failure you assert to be the
vital Sapping process through which they
have been compelled to pass in acquiring
such record. Now these are mere asser-
tons, not arguments, and the burden is
upon him who makes an assertion to
prove it. What evidence is within your
point to Il particular horse having fast
record and say that that horse has
proved a failure in the stud proves moth
ing, for it does not follow that this par
ticular horse would not have been a fail
ure if he had never been trained. Not
one undeveloped sire in twenty proves a
success. If a horse with a fast record
does fail in the stud, how does that fact
prove or tend to prove that his failure is
because of his record? The history of
trotting sires abundantly proves that it
is more than 20 to one that he would have
failed if he had had no record. During
the GO years that the people of the United
States have been engaged in breeding and
developing the trOtting horse, up TO the
close of 1856. only about 100 sires had
ever succeeded in producing performer
with record of 80 or better, and $50 of
these had produced only one each and
only about 40 of them had produced as
many as three each. know of no one
who asserts that a horse having a fast
record must necessarily. and because of
that fact, prove successful sire. 70 be
a successful sire horse must have breed
ing as well as speed.
Obviously, there are but two methods
by which the truth of your assertion, if
IL DC tIuC, Cdil NC IL Ou
find number of instances where horses
having proved successful sires before be-
ing trained have proved failures after
making fast record, you will furnish
material and cogent evidence in support
of your position. Now, | challenge you
to produce single instance where there
has been such a failure. In the absence
of such evidence, there is but one other
method by which your assertion can be
established. If you can find large num-
Der of horses, well bred in trotting lines,
having fast records that have as a class
failed in the stud, then you may argue
with greater force that their failure can
be accounted for only on the ground that
their training has injured them as sires.
In discussing such proposition, it is
necessary to determine in advance what
shall be deemed conclusive evidence of a
horses failure. Time and opportunity
are essential elements by which success
or failure can alone be determined. Waiv-
ing the question of opportunity, what
time shall be given a horse to produce