usable, perhaps, but
in the Fat Stock Show, where we deal so fully in details and exact
figures, and where we pretend to use our best efforts in every practical
manner to get at and publish for the benefit of a confiding world the
reliable, bottom facts obtained by the labors of paid experts, reach a
conflicting record is not, in any judgement, one to be greatly proud of.

There is one plain, just and proper remedy for this, to wit: Restrict
the award of sweepstakes prizes in the several breed rings to such
animals as have taken first premiums in the rings for ages, and restrict
competition for _grand sweepstakes_ to such animals as have taken
_sweepstake_ prizes in the breed rings as have not otherwise competed at
all. The awards of all special prizes should follow the decisions in the
regular rings when not offered for animals not included in the regular
rings.

Under this rule every animal competing for a sweepstakes prize, with
possible exceptions in the grand sweepstakes, would have received the
highest indorsement of the committees, and hence there could be no
pretense of prejudice on the part of the judges and hence, too, it would
matter very little whether a new competent committee were called for the
grand sweepstakes or that committee was composed of judges who served in
the rings, the latter, in my opinion, being preferable, because of their
larger opportunity in becoming familiar with the points of difference
between the competing animals.

I am persuaded that no objection to the remedy as I have stated it,
would or could properly be made except by those whose animals were not
included in the first prize or sweepstakes winners, and the only
objection I have ever heard to the adoption of the rule, even at the
fairs, is based on the idea that those animals (or the owners) failing
to take prizes in the rings for ages, should have a "new trial" before
an entirely new jury in sweepstakes. But how about those who won the
verdict in the first trial! Is there any justice in requiring them to
submit to another trial between themselves and those they have once
vanquished? and if there is any propriety in that, why not in still
another new trial and more new trials before new juries until every
animal in the show has received a first prize, or the treasury has been
exhausted or the community fails to furnish any more jurymen?

If it were simply the "consolation stakes" to non-prize winners, some
loose practice migh