Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-06-15
COLOR AS AN INDEX TO PARENT
ACE

1t is doubtful if better illustration of
the unreliability of color as an index of
the parentage of any member of the
equine family can be found than the pres
ent queen of the trotting turf, Maud s.
q 0S3. Some time since it was reported
that this trotting wonder was daughter
of Belmont instead of Harold. The story
was proven false beyond the shadow of
a doubt by parties knowing to all the cir
cumstances. yet there are, and probably
always will be, those who honestly be-
lieve that she is the daughter of the noted
son of Alexander's Abdallah above men,
toned, simply because the color of her
coat is beautiful chestnut. Both Har-
old and Belmont are bays; their sires
were bays and their dams were of the
same color.
Miss Russell, the dam of Maud s., was
gray, as was also her sire, Pilot Jr. The
dam of Miss Russell was strongly inbred
to Diomed. The latter was a chestnut,
and stamped that color so forcibly upon
many of his descendants that it was
transmitted with considerable uniformity
from one generation to another. The
sire of Pilot Jr., was the black Canadian
PAGER Old Pilot His dam was bred by
Mr.. William II. Pope, who represented
her to have been by horse called Havoc
by Sir Charles. After the death of Mr..
Pope there was a question raised concern
ing the accuracy of this statement. The
gentlemen who were in doubt evidently
supposed that the Havoc mentioned by
Mr.. Pope was the one registered in the
American Stud book as bred by the
Messrs. Corbin of Virginia, foaled in
1926, got by Sir Charles, son of Sir
Archy; dam, Powancy, by Sir Alfred.
The age and location of this horse at the
time Nancy Pope was bred made it ex-
tremely improbable that she could be a
daughter of this Havoc, by Sir Charles,
and no other horse called Havoc, by Sir
parties.
1t seems, however, that there was an
other Havoc, and 1t is pretty evident that
he was chestnut-colOred son of Sir
CHARLES. which may in part account for
the color of Maud S. @ :0S3), Nutwood
(2:lS3) and Viking (2:204), whose dam
Waterwitch, by Pilot Jr., was bay. The
investigation concerning the breeding OF
Nancy Pope brought out the following
letters, that appeared some years since in
Wallace's Monthly, and serve to substan
tate the statement of Mr.. Pope that Nan
cy Pope, bred by him and afterward dis
tinguished as the dam of Pilot Jr., wa;
by Hav oc, son of Sir Charles, by Sit
Archy, son of imported Diomed. The
letters speak for themselves and are a:
follows:
''kUTTAwA, Lyons Co., Ky. I
March 6, 1879
81. III. Wallace, Esq, New York:
"Dedr Sir Il had but three days age
written to Mr.. Brodhead himself an in
finite deal of nothing about the pedi
gree of Pilot Jr., when 10, here is you
letter of March 3, calling for more. Tn,
subject has always been to me matte
of Indifference, whether as a scientific o.
propriety question. but my nephew, tn,
late Richard A. Anderson of Dayton, O.
(probably on account of his neighbour,
pressed me Gas it seems) into the contro
versy. And now find, to my surprise
that some casual conversations of mine
. long ago and entirely forgotten by me
have been construed into an authority TO
fact and opinions, some of which neve
knew, and one of which q am certain) i
not true. Of course, | readily perceiv
that such misunderstanding and conse
quent misrepresentation of my 'hors
talk is entirely honest and frank Tn
spirit of partisanship in such disputes
and the confusion of what the speake
stated for himself or reported for others
or, yet more, the confounding of one An
derson's memories or additions for thos
of another, will quite sufficiently accoun
for this mistake, at this time, as to m,
share in these contributions to the 'trutl
OF history
"As to your case, / find from tn
number of your monthly which you sen
me, that you have already gathered &
cloud of witnesses" which whether as t,
intelligence or moral character, was new
er before probably equalled in such
controversy. The opportunities of know
ing the facts are also unusually good.
know them all intimately, and must sa'
Gin compliment to impartial diligence
that | cannot setup my testimony agains
theirs in a case when their special oppor
tunities are equal to mine. These are adj
ditional reasons why would gladly sta,
out of this question. But it so chance
that accident or the necessities of you
case have driven you into position
which involves the integrity of yer,
old and dear friend of mine, the late Ma
iOr p Fink and cannot faal it riuhi