require. And there is a vast difference in regard to a hog whether, when it is dressed, it will lose one fourth, one-fifth, or one twelfth of its gross weight, or whether we have an animal all legs, and so formed that he will not dress to good advantage at all. No man can judge properly in these respects unless the animal is put in the best condition you can get him in; but when he is put in the proper condition, any farmer in the land can come and form a proper conclusion, and be benefited by the exhibition of stock in this way, and in no other way.

R. BAKER, Lorain county: If I understand Judge Jones' position right, he specifies two classes of premiums. First, for the best stock raised in this State, and then sweepstakes for those coming from any other State. I think there is some reason in what the Judge says on this point because you can come in in this way in the second class from any part of the world and compete for the premiums. But as long as you have such Shorthorns as David Selsor, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Anderson exhibit, and such Devons as were shown by Messrs. Buckingham, Whitmore, Gower, and others in this State, though we have not many Ayrshires, I do not see that we can have very great success without follow. ing the suggestions made. There is some reason, as Judge Jones says, that when a class of cattle of this kind are going from one fair to another, that they should not compete with our breeders when nine tenths of the herds that are those brought from a distance are not shown by the breeders. This is known the world over. Let us have the breeder's stock. Let us encourage our breeders. Let us not give such large premiums alike to all. Let us know where the stock comes from, and I think, as all can go into the second class named, no injustice will be done.

S. H. TODD: I think my point is correct yet. I think the stock shown in this State are such as my friend would keep persons from other States from exhibiting. I think Mr. Selsor and others are showing exactly such cattle as you would not allow others to come here and show.

W. B. MCCLUNG: I take it that there is no harm in criticising Judge Jones. He is a gentleman who will always bear criticism. His careful preparation and his good judgment always direct him to consider his subject well. This subject evidently has been one of very considerabe thought with him. Allow me, however, to say that it seems to me that Judge Jones might be termed a strict constructionist. In other words, . that he has laid down rules for the Ohio State Board of Agriculture and others, that could not be applied to any institutions in the country, either morally or socially. Now allow me to say in the beginning in regard to Judge Jones' reference to the English agricultural societies, that he made a comparison that cannot be applied to agricultural socie

ties in this country, He said they never allowed racing of any kind to be carried on at the English Royal Agricultural Society This is literally true; and it is true again that the land is confined to a very few of the wealthy in England. It is concentrated upon these And they have undertaken to put before the people agricultural societies for the purpose of exhibiting stock of a certain grade and implements of a certain character. These are the only items they push forward in that particular organization. Then again, when they have their Derby races, that is for a particular set of the racing, or horse interest. Now neither one of them is under the government patronage, but it is carried on by these gentlemen of wealth that have the means to accomplish that end. Judge Jones would have us believe that they crowded this out of their system in England, because they were opposed to mixing things together. Now let me ask here, does it seem as though it was because of their opposi tion to mixing these interests together that they did it? When the Derby races are in session the members of the English parliament attend with all the pomposity of the English government. Go to the history of the Derby races and you will find that they not only adjourned parliament for a day, but during weeks and weeks, to see the Derby races; thus showing the patronage of the English government the highest patronage of which they are capable, so far as respectability goes. And for what? For the express purpose to encourage and cultitivate improvement in their fast horses. These races exist under very peculiar circumstances, and can be carried on so as to procure horses of the greatest durability, which are tested at these races Gentlemen of means are breeding up and some of them have immense studs of horses, brought up for the purpose of speed, and these horses, at different ages, come in and compete at these races for the premiums, receiving the entire sanction of the better classes of England; encouraged by every influence England can give it when these interests are concentrated at the Derby races.

If my friend Judge Jones had followed this matter a little farther, I think he might have found, that if the church of England had been in session under the patronage of the government, these gentlemen would likely have adjourned, I suspect, and have gone to see the Derby races. If they did not do that, they would have doubtless resorted to some other plan to aid in carrying out the enterprise. Now there is no such influence to govern us as to how we shall conduct our affairs. We are peculiarly situated. So far as we are concerned there is not very much accumulated wealth. It is much more diversified. There is not that wealthy aristocracy here enabling them to gather up and establish a

certain class of exhibitions in this country. What is done here, must be done with the aid of a little encouragement from the government. When we have accumulated wealth enough, then we may establish such a thing upon a more aristocratic basis. Now so much as to the English

race-course.

Again, and I want it to be understood that I intend to cast no slur on Judge Jones, or any of the moral, religious or benevolent organizations of the country, for in proportion as we have religious and benevolent agencies, in that proportion will we have elevation and prosperity as a people. But I would inquire if my friend Jones is in favor of using the same restriction or strict construction in regard to benevolent organizations. Now, if you please, take for instance the church to which he belongsand I do not mean any disrepect to that church, but simply take that as an illustration-take the Episcopal organization. Is it so strange a thing for them to meet together in their churches, for the purpose of benevolent operations, or to take care of some unfortunate or afflicted one? Is it any thing strange, I ask, for them, in their fairs, to have some peculiar attractions that have as little to do with religion or morals as most anything can? Why it is nothing strange to have your grab bags, with gum babies, either dressed or undressed, and to have your dancing jacks in the bag, to be drawn by unsophisticated gentle men for a dime. Such things are drawn out to laugh at, and to make sport. Now, is there anything p rticularly harmful about that? I say I do not want to be considered as finding any fault about this. Take another branch of the church. If you please, take the Catholic Church. That is a power here that should be regarded with a great deal of consideration and respect. It is nothing unusual for them, at their church fairs, to put up a gold-headed cane or watch, to be voted for by paying for the privilege, to be given to the best-looking man, or the most popular conductor on a railroad, or the most popular this or that, so as to get in the most money they can get from the people. And all for what? To promote the interests of their religious organization.

I would not say but that my friend here, Major Millikin--and I only take him because he and I were both raised Presbyterians-now I am not certain but that even a staid Scotch Presbyterian as he is, if he was on the fair ground when there was a little bit of enjoyment going on over in the ring, if he was not too busy, and should hear the shouts coming up from the ring as the horses flew around it, would run to the ring too. It is the most natural thing in the world to do this. The only question is, as to it diverting the minds of the people from the actual benefits growing out of an attendance at the agricultural fair. I am in favor of

one thing, gentlemen, that is not to pull down unless you can build up. Have these gentlemen proposed any plan now to build up? I can take you to all the religious organizations in every branch of society, and show reasons for continuing institutions like this.

MR. DOUTHETT: I do not like to hear these charges madge against religious organizations. I think the gentleman has gone too far. The representations made are not true as to all our religious organizations, and the gentleman has no business to make such representations here. I do not want to sit still and hear religious bodies sland-red in that way by any man. Now, Catholocism and religion are two very different things. The showing of babies in religious soci-ties that are very respectable is not very common. I hope it will be dropped.

W. B. MCCLUNG: While I have the most profound regard for one who stands up for the rights of religious bodies, and shall not lack in courtesy toward them, but will always be ready to take off my hat to them in courtesy; yet, I remember this: I remember that my father advocated a great many things that looked to me as not exactly the thing to be advocated; and I have lived to see my own boy advocate that which I thought was wrong, but I guess he is right. Now, we are living in an age when things are done which I would not be surprised, would shock my old friend here, who may take a different view of the subject, and I want to set my self right both to him and to the assembly. I said in the outset that no man could surpass me in my admiration of the churches as benevolent organizations of the land-both the Protestant and the Catholic churches of the land. I believe that they are the bulwark of morality, and the support of this government, and so long as we have them in the numerical numbers we have, and held up as they are by the people, this government, in my opinion, is safe. But while that is true, I am not, sir, going to be confined to any opinion of my friend Judge Jones when he comes along as a strict constructionist to teach the State Board that they are not to do what church organizations, religious and benevolent organizations are doing from day to day. There is not a gentleman here that does not know that what I have said is true. And I said in the outset that these practices were resorted to to gather up funds for purposes of benevolence. Is not the grab-bag often used at these church fairs, in which may be contained a naked baby-it may be either a black or white one, and perhaps, by paying a dime, you have the privilege of plunging your hand in and drawing forth a baby? Does any one object to that, so you pay for the privilege and thus assist in furnishing them plenty of money? There is no harm in it, and a church can do this thing and not be contaminated. I admit that my friend here

might look on with some degree of suspicion. But the world moves on in that way. And, now, gentlemen, I say, with regard to your fair, instead of gentlemen coming and tearing it down, they ought to try and build it up. Why did not Judge Jones, when the Board was in debt some eight or ten thousand dollars, tell them how to build up the State Fair? Why did he not tell them how to extricate themselves out of that debt and enable them to say what industrial interests should be represented; what reapers and mowers should be exhibited, and with what parphernalia stock should come in? That, it seems to me, would have been better than to come here as a fault fi.der and say that this thing must be stopped, without showing how the exhibition is to be made to pay. Now, gentlemen, we are on the broad gauge and are going ahead. Judge Jones and others who are opposed to this matter, have just as much admiration of good horses as I have, and they know just as well as I know, by the English herd book and English horse book-I cannot think of the name, that this test is made for ascertaining what horses are of the best material, and that the horse shall be bred to propagate his species in such a way that we can get the greatest endurance and the best formed animals. Now, we have here thoroughbred horses imported from England. For what purpose are they brought here? They are a class of horses that have power and endurance. Does Judge Jones or any man say that is not a test of endurance. Tell me, when you put a thoroughbred horse on the track and run him four miles and repeat, and when the third repeat is made, he comes with his head up and nostrils spread, showing like Job's war horse that he is ready for the fray. I tell you there is some. thing in that breed and that mode of testing that we want in our horses as roadsters, and to be transferred among our stock-something there we want every day. These are the principles that underlie this matter. How far that shall be controlled by State boards of agriculture, is another thing. But that it ought to be encouraged, there can be no question. Now, for that reason, I think that the Board came to the conclusion rightly when they cast this vote. There was a discussion upon that subject last year at our last annual meeting, in which the editor of the Ohio Farmer said this:

"I have been publishing the Ohio Farmer for seven years, and ever since I have been publishing it this question has been discussed. It has been discussed a good deal tonight, and this Convention is about as near decided in regard to this question as it was when I commenced publishing. For my part, I would like to see, as my friend Pope has suggested, an expression from the presidents of the different county societies who are here. It looks to me as if there would be some little weight about that; and I will move, if you will entertain my motion, to get an expression—that it is not expedient to pay premiums for horse-racing at fairs."