Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1889-07-12

HssOcldtlOu vi lTOJtinS IloIso DiCcuciSs
for the instruction of future breeders,
and thence will be copied into the horse
periodicals of the land. The report above
quoted, which shows that they knew
nothing about which horse sired him, will
not go with the registry; but the fact
which is unascertained will stand side by
side with ascertained facts and without
distinction from them, and so will be a
false light to msead the student and the
enquirer. For nothing is palmer than
that the report, after stating, land with
out finding anything that might be con-
sidered absolutely conclusive" should |
have continued, "and therefore we con-
cluded to go about our business until
such facts were proved" But no. Be-
ing determined to tell the public what
they had not found out themselves, they
decided that Welch was the sire land or
dered him to be so creditedm They have
given us no information whatever as to
what the evidence was; they have mere
ly told us that it was not sufficient to
convince them, but on the whole they
have concluded we must accept their
guess on the subject.
Now, who are these three potentates?
Let us look into the scheme, and If we
are to be arbitrarily ruled in the matter,
let us at least know by whom and by
what authority. The whole proceeding
looks fishy from the beginning. Here is
board of five judges who have all unan-
imously passed upon controverted
question, and have signed and entered
their judgment. Now a proceeding in
the nature of an appeal is instituted. An
appeal to whom? Why, to the same
board. But when the appeal is to be
heard only three of the five appear. This
seems worse than the reverse of the ia
nous appeal from Philip drunk to Philip
sober. But the three proceed to reverse
and set aside the Judgment of the five
and enter up a new judgment in its stead.
And thereupon the matter is proclaimed
as forever settled, although nobody
knows upon what evidence the three
acted.
This would seem sufficiently absurd.
AS matter of fact it does not approach
the grotesque absurdty of the actual sit
uation. Somebody was in trouble. Some
body's books had been forged in
"wretched attempt" to uphold the claim
of Stillson. Now who, of all men on
earth was the owner of those books and
that horse? Let the American Trotting
Register Standard Department, vol. D.,
page 10, answer. We copy;
500. Stillson %, CHI. h., foaled 1870 {;
got by Messenger Duroc, 106; dam Grey
Rose, by Hambletonian, 2, etc. (see Vol.
p. Kept several years at Mansfield,
Ohio, and vicinity. Owned by f. ID.
Norris. Brooklyn" F. ID. Norris, one of
the three censors that sat for the ''tinal''
decision of this question. Mr.. Norris
was the owner of StillsOn until April Z,
1887. when he sold him to Mr. Patterson.
The case goes far beyond comment.
But Mr.. Wallace does comment upon it,
carefully emitting, however, to mention
that the culprt and the judge were iden-
teal. He calls it a "wretched attempt at
deception" But wait, Mr. Wallace. Are
you sufficiently without sin among these
) people to be qualified to cast this stone;
Look at Grey Rose in the above pedigree
She is the dam of the famous Cuyler, as
well as of Stilson, is she not? And you
: recorded her in the American Trotting
Register, Vol. 3, page 259, as by Harris
/, Hambletonian, without qualification, die
. you not? And you knew at that time
, that her breeding was unknown, tha
you were ignorant who bred her, anC
, knew nothing whatever about the matter
except that she was said to have beer
/ bred near Hinesburgh, Vermont; that il
true, is it not? And you transferred hel
to the pedigrees of Cuyler and StillsOn il
: the standard department, in equal ignor
: ance as to her origin, and there again en-
e tered her as an animal definitely ascer
,. tanned to have been got by Ham5letonial
y (Harris' Hambetonian), did you not
. And in an editorial article in the Hors,
S Department of the MiDDLEBURY REGIS
: TER of December 30, 1887, which pape
+ goes regularly to your office, Grey Ros
t was traced back through the hands of al
f her owners, from Charles Backman t.
. her breeder, Samuel Rublee, then o
!, Bristol, Vermont, who was shown by tn
n records to have sold his farm there il
5 March, 1853, and the mare was shown no
: to have been over three years old at tina
: time-that statement is correct, is it not
h And you have known all along tina
n Harris Hambletonian died in 1917, hav
you not? And after having thus ex
t changed your ignorance for knowledg
: that Grey Rose could not have been b.
!, Harris Hambletonian, you have hithert
e entirely ignored the matter and studious
y ly avoided not only the correction of thu
-. q ~. IL -.