Agricultural and Pastoral Association.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4855, 21 November 1883, Page 4

Agricultural and Pastoral Association.

+ PUOTBBTS. A SERIOUS CHARGE. A speoially-summoned meeting of tho above Sooiety was held at thair offioes, Hereford street, at 2 p.m. yesterday, for the purpose of considering oertain protests made with regard to the judging at the late show on tho Frinoe of Wales' Birthday ; preeent— Meßsrs T. Bruce (Chairman), Robert Wilkia,W. Norman, 8. Garforth, B. Sutherland, J. Anderson, jun., M'Beath, Henderson, Boag, Deans, Parker, P. Duncan, Fergusson, J. Gould, H. F. Murray- Ay nsley, and Harley. The Seorotary read protests received froir Messrs Haydon against the judges' award of the special prize offered by the Lyttelton Times Company, Limited, for the best hams and bacon oured by a bond fide farmer. This had gone to tho exhibit sent from the Agricultural College. Mr Haydon protested that the College was not the aame thing as a bond fide farmer. The Chairman said they had met to coneider how far tho wording of the catalogue applied. The managing proprietor of tho Lyttelton Times Company had deolincd to into; pret tho words, and Baid he would rather leave the matter in the hands of the Asaooiation to deal with as they saw fit. The Beoretary said that a similar question had arisen in 1880 about the same thing. A like protest had been deoided against a man who kept a store, and gained his living by other moans besides simple agriculture. Mr Parker Baid he oertainly thought they oould hardly stretch the meaning of tho words to ooveran Agricultural College where they had Government capital, and Government soienoe brought into competition with men of small mean?, and possessed of inferior appliances. Mr Sutherland oontended that the College were, nevertheless, farmers, for their work of raising the pigs and curing them was performed on the farm itself. Mr Wilkin said they wore there to do justice by all ; the money for tha prize was given them as a sort of trust by the Lyttelton Times Company, and they must carry out the inten« tion of bhe prize-givers, whioh were evidently to induce small farmers to try their fortune in this particular branch of farming industry, and to shut out tho large ourers and their professional skill. Several other members present expressed similar views, and it was anally resolved — '■ That tha pretest bo sustained &3 ngainut the School oc Agriculture." A second protest by Mr Haydon, on the same grounds, against tho prize going to Mr Olarkson, another exhibitor in the same olubs, was then considered. The Chairman said he was surprised that no evidence had been laid before them to show that Mr OJarkwn was not a bond fide farmer. The onus of proof lay with those who protested. He should like to hear what Mr Haydon himself had to say on this point. ' Mr Haydon, who was in attendance, was then called in, and stated that Mr Okrkßon had practically admitted to him in conversation that be had no claim to the prize by saving (n hen urged to enter a protest against the School of Agriculture) that he himself was a butoher, and his exhibits would he equally open to protest. The Chairman said the meeting would like even a little more information upon the subject. The protest against th) School of Agriculture had been maintained. In that case the matter was clear enough, but Mr Haydon must bring some proof in this instance. Mr Haydon did not see what better proof oould be given than Mr Clarkson's own words. Mr Olarkson, he believed, owned a few acres of ground, but, as far as he knew, noither grew grain himself, employed others to cultivate for him, nor did he grow root crops. The Chairman took it that the tama line of argument applied to Mr Olarkson as to the Sohool of Agriculture, but he should like to hear the statement of the latter. Several members thought the meeting quite competent to deal with the m&tier from the personal knowledge possessed by them. It was well known to most of them that Mr OJarkson had no olaim to be called a farmer. Besolved — "That tha protest be sustained." The next matter was a protest by Measrs Booth and Maodonald, implement makers, against the judging in the difforent olaßaes of farm machines and implements. Two letters were read from the firm, the first stating that one of the judges, Mr Webster, was biaßsed in favour of Messrs F. and D. Dunoan's exhibits, and they osuld prove he had acted in collusion with one of the partners of that firm to influence tho decisions of the judges. The seoond latter somewhat softened down the harshness of this last oharge, and Messrs Booth and Macdonald therein also stated that the word "collusion" had been used by them in writing without quite thinking of the very strong and disagreeable meaning attached to it. They oould, however, prodnce evidenoe to show that Mr Webiter and Messrs Duncan had so aoted as to lead to an understanding between them with reference to the identification of exhibits, &,■>. In answer to this letter, another was read from Mea»ra F. and D. Duncan, denying the oharge as far as they were oonoerned, pointing out that they had often beaten Messrs Booth and Macdonald at other shows, and challenging, the publio, the judges, or anyone, to bring forward any proof of suoh conduct as that of whioh they were aooused. Mr Wilkin asked what was the exaot meanisg of the word " collusion." It seemed to him that a moßt severe aooueation had been brought against one of their judges. The dictionary was reforred to, and it was found thaft "oollusion" was explained as "a secret agreement between persons with intent to defraud." This was felt to involve a very strong charge, and being made as it wbb against a member of the Committee and a well-known firm of tradesmen, it was deoided, after some desultory conversation, to investigate it thoroughly. Mr Booth, who waited upon the meeting, said that his firm did not wish to make the matter more unpleasant than need be ; the word " collusion had been used under misapprehension as to its full foroe, and they had possibly put themselves into a rather unpleasant position by writing as they had done. But he thought they oould oertainly establish tho faot that Messrs Dunoan had praotically committed an infringement of the rules in allowing a judge to soe their exhibits before the names were covered up as required. Thoy could prodaro evidence to that effect,, and were also pn :p»Jcrf to demonstrate that M? Webster hud examined the exhibits in M«sars Duncan's i<hop» tumo time bsfore the show. The judging had been unsatisfactory, i b» several years pust, anri though they could not of coarse prove t>!:afc Mr Webster's mind was biaßdsd in mi? particular direction, yet they ooiild show, on oath, if nuuessarr,. that he bad been shown, ovat the shops in forme? ! years before the show took plaoe. Mr Webster had been xtiiih Mr P. Duncan among . the exhibits of implement early in tho morning of the first day o5 the show. Several members doubted this from Jact* within their own knowledge, but it waa decided thai. Mr Booth must produce his witnesses. Mr Scrimgeou? said ho had seen Mr . Webster and Mr P. Dunoan together among t!ao draya. about 9 a.m. on the first day of the show. The judging had not thon begun, and he vrus oertain that he could not be ; mistaken as to the identity of either indivi- ' dual, as he knew both of them intimately. He could not say whether Mr Duncan actually pointed out any of his own exhibits to Mr Webßter. He had no animosity against the Duncans, in whose employ he had been, but had left while on the best of terms with them. Mr Booth then oalled Mr Boas, who stated that in 1881, when employed by the Messrs Duncan, Mr Webster had come to the shops just about a fortnight before the agricultural show. He was directed by Mr D. Duncan to take Mr Webster round and especially draw his attention to the machines, &o-, then in

oourse of construction for the show. Mr Duncan at the same time told him that Mr Webster was going to be a judge of implements, and he had an impression that this visit was a customary occurrence with him. He was not then acquainted with Mr Webster. Mr Boag asked if Messrs F. and D. Dunoan had had any extraordinary suooess that year. The Beoretary read the priza list, showing that they had obtained a fair number of prizes. Mr F. Duncan was then called in, and the evidenoe of Messrs Booth, Sorimgeour, and Boss read over. In answer to the oharge of having been with Mr Webster at the show grounds before the judging was done, Mr Duncan said that the first time he had Been him that day was about 11.30 a.m. He was then at some distance off, and did not see or meet him again till luncheon time— after 1 p.m., and all the conversation that then passed between them was a " Good day " on cither side. He was not there exoect very early in the morning, nor was Mr Webster either, whose train arrived late that day. The only time he had talked to Mr Webster during tho show days was about 8.30 a.m. on the Saturday; then he was in Lichfleld street. Mr Henderson said it was quite impossible Mr Duncan and Mr Webster could have been seen together on the show ground at the hour named, as the latter had not then arrived in town : in fact he wbb so lato that they had to begin judging without him. 'Xhe Chairman remarked that he himsolf had seen Mr Webster enter the gate after 11 a.m., and had reoeived his explanation, whioh was that it was no fault of his, as the Leeston train was an hour behind time that morning. A general opinion was expressed that Mr Booth's witness had made some extraordinary and unaccountable mistake. With regard to the evidence of Mr Boss to the effect that Mr Webiter had been shown round the shops before the show, Mr F. Dunoan said that Mr Webßter was' in the habit of oomiag in there when in town, but he did not xemembor his having been there since five weeks before the Leeston Show. His brother oould, perhaps, give evidence as to that. Mr D. Dunoan, who was Bent for, said that it was quite truo that Mr Webster often came in to pay them a visit at intervals. He had made it a habit for the lasfc eighteen years, but he did not think he would do such a thing as come in just before the show for the express purpose of seeing what was being mudo. fie had no hesitation in saying that the statement that he hud made this a praotioe was quite false. He could never remember his having been in their shop within two months of the show day. It was unanimously resolved—" That the protest of Meenrs Sooth and Macdonald be not sustained, and the Committee regret that they should have made such a serious ohargo against one of the judges-" It was arranged that the Secretary, who was about to visit Dunedin, should have the same travelling allowance mado him as on a former occasion, and the meeting then adjourned.