Show-Yard Judging.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XVIII, Issue 1702, 3 July 1885, Page 2 (Supplement)

Show-Yard Judging.

from the Live Stock Journal. Ajifnest the subjects connected with the management of agricultural societies which have lately been discussed, the system of show-yard judging has taken a prominent place. Apart from the question of selection, there has been a good deal of talk ns to the desirability of some changes in the number ol j:: Ires 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 each ring. TnL- 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 cases the single judge system has been tried; in others tvo judges have been put to the work that had formerly keen done by three. As will always oe the c-i-o with questions of the kind, there is still much difference ot opinion as to whieh system is the best and most likely to ensure accurate decisions and to gain public confidence.

In this column, recently, we discussed the subject at some length, stating the pros and eons of the various systems which had been mentioned. In show-yard judging we regard consultation as quite essential; and on this account alone we bav.- felt unable to express approval of the grj: badge sy<rtSf

The time honored trio g oopie faeiliiy'or consultation ; bat it has been considered that it doe? cot directly enough throw the responsibility of the decisions upon each individual jude It enables one judge to shirk the responsibility of an unpopular award fay laying the blame upn lie two follow jurors. “ Well, yon knor I was only one of three," is by no me?.*- ,i uncommon remark upon occasion- . tba kind. We have given careful o- . uratioi to all the various proposed changes, and wo have expressed our decided preference for ths two judge system. Two judges are better than on?, because they can consult together as to the good and bad points of the animal) before them. Two are preferable to three, because there is no " third party" upon whom to cast the blame of any unpopular award! Wo did. not 10.-s sight of the pro! .ibi!ry c I di.-agrecirip'-t between the two judge-, iv i tel A--.oom'i any difficulty which miglr ati- hr this way. we suggested a plan, which arc. 1 much pleased to .i- to have a trial hi •.’..ft, coming season. This plan is. “ That | three; luffien should be appointed, but that oniytwil should act at one time. T!jJ tnn'i W remain in the ring, but would not do any r-alf work unless any point were referred to iiiin by the other two. - . . Each of the three judges should take turnabout 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 societies, and last autumn it was tried and succeeded j admirably at certain shows in the United j 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 Gilrst advocated the adoption of this system. And we learn with much 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'Qjeen of Crofts introduced the i

subject in a motion, which would seem to 'nave met with cordial approval. As elaborated by Mr. M-Qeeex, the new system is as follows To appoint three judges at formerly, but have only two acting t‘>>:tO€n unless in case of difference of opinion, wV.en the third man he called in to decide. For »t«sr* e ~'" hase three judges annointed, say A, 15. an > C for section I, we baiiot one out. say C ; ti>«;i we have A and B to judge auction 1. whicn Itry finish judging i -gi.-tUet, u iless they differ in opinion, when C hj celled in to decile between them. Then, fir ■' otioa hj we have C in as one of the j dg-;3, and ballot between A and B. Say B thrown out, then C and A judge section 2, a-. 1 !;-.is i, unless thev differ in opinion, when B ; 3 ca11..-! in to decide. Then, for sections, you pa: them all in and ballot one out, iuiiibly A Then B and C judge section 2, and so on. 1 ' It was pointed out bv Mr, M'Qaecn that

"by this system no exhibitor can tell beforehand which two judg- ■ will judge s particular secir n, and it will stop ah attempts to canvoss or influence the j id -rs b*f..rebind ; it will have cFnvnt of i ;isu. =s w'i m will r'lninrud i>. to exhihi'ors. whvh I tie pres'-nt -y-tftn d.i-rs not always d > hv ; ■■ .rii judge Wiiiir.'M ... p--f v.l r-u. m ■.; .’1 i■y than •»• o three j i.»os w. :.s (Y im ■■ s and the public will know n:: whoso t; uiffik.*!-: a par'ocular deci'ion net-'.’’ The director.' rc=-cvf i iu ■ v-, -p.. .p •!■ to ell c-G«es for which lime judges are entries fur the eho-v should be cVed before the judges gh-.t’M be nominated, and that the namr? of the judge: slr-nl l be published as soon as their ncceptar.ee? had been received. These are important changes, and their operation will bo watched with interest. Would it not have been better to have the judges nominated earlier, and thc-ir names published before entries are solicited ?