Show-Yard Judging.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1157, 27 June 1885, Page 2 (Supplement)

Show- Yard Judging.

prom the Live Stock Jowrnal.

Amongst the subjects connected with the management of agricultural societies whioh have lately been discussed, the system of chow-yard judging has taken a prominent place. Apart from the question of selection, there has been a good deal of talk as to the desirability of some changes in the number of judges to act together, and in the manner of conducting the judging process. For many years the most general custom has been for three judges to act together in eaoh ring. This system undoubtedly has its drawbacks as well as its advantages, and, latterly, a feeling in favor of some alteration" has been gaining strength. In numerous oases the single judge system has been tried ; in others two judges have been put to the work that had formerly been done by three. As will always be the caaa with questions of the kind, there is still much difference of opinion as to which system is tbe best and most likely to ensure accurate decisions and to gain public conflience.

In this column, recently, we discussed the subject at some length, stating the pros and cons of the various systems which had been mentioned. In show-yard judging we regard consultation as quite essential; and on this account alone we have felt unable to express approval of the single judge system. The time-honored trio gives ample facility for consultation ; but it has been considered that it does not directly enough throw the responsibility of the decisions upon eaoh individual judge. It enables one judge to shirk the responsibility of an unpopular award by laying the blame upon his two fellow jurors. " Well, you know, I w?,3 only one of three," is by no means an uncommon remark upon occasions of .^ kind. We have given careful conskT to all the various proposed change^, and we have expressed our decided preference for the two-judge system. Two judges are better than one, beoause they can consult together as to the good and bad points of the animals before them. Two are preferable to three, beoause there is no " third party" upon whom to cast the blame of any unpopular award. We did not lose sight of the probability of disagreement between the two judges, and to overcome any difficulty which might arise in this way, we suggested a plan, which we are muoh pleased to see is to have a trial in the coming season. This plan is, " That three judges should be appointed, but that only two should act at one time. The third would remain in the ring, but would not do any real work unless any point were referred to him by the other two. , . . Each of the three judges Bhould take turn about as referee, or it should be decided by ballot which two should adjudicate upon each separate class." This suggested plan at once met with favour from some American sooieties, and last autumn it was tried and succeeded admirably at certain shows in the United States. At the Institute of Agriculture, in the discussion of Mr. F. Street's paper, the question of judging was touched upon, and Mr. Walter Gilbey advocated the adoption of this system. And we learn with muoh satisfaction that it is to be put into force at the shows of the Highland and Agricultural Society. At a meeting of the directors of that Society, held on Wednesday of last week, Mr. M'Qaeen of Crofts introduced the Bubjeot in a motion, which would seem .to have met wf th cordial approval. As elaborated by Mr. M'Queen, the new system is as follows :— " To appoint three judges as formerly, but have only two acting together, unless in case of difference of opinion, when the third man be called in to decide. For example — We have three judges appointed, say A, B, and C for seotion 1 ; we ballot one out, say C ; then we have A and B to judge seotion 1, which they finish judging together, unless they differ in opinion, when Cis called in to decide between them. Then, for seotion 2, we have C in as one of the judges, and ballot between A and B. Say B tkrown out, then C and A judge seotion 2, aud finish, unless they differ in opinion, when Bis called iv to decide. Then, for seotion 3, you pat them all in and ballot one out, possibly A Then B and 0 judge seotion 2, and so on." It wm pointed oat by Mr. M'Queen that

"by this system no exhibitor can tell beforehand which two judges will judge a particular section, and it will stop all attempts to canvass or influence the judges beforehand : it will havo an eleruf-nf; of fairness which will commend it to exhibitors, whic^ tbe present system does not always do, an<! n»ch judge will incur nuro personal re^pon -iV.lity than when three judges act, 6B exhibitors end the public will know on whose shoulders a particular deoision reste." The directors resolved to cxkinl tV< system to all clashes for which three, judges are named. It was Kkc-wit-e s»«r.-:o't that the entries for the sbo* sTaould be closed before the judges Bhould be nominated, and that the names of the ju<sge3 should be published aH soon as their acceptances bad been received. These are important changes, and their operation will be watched with interest. Would it not have been better to have the judges nominated earlier, and their names published before entries are solicited ?