THE KENTUCKY FARMER AND BREEDER
In a recent communication to the
Rider and Driver, Mr. Charles L. Rai-lethe we'l known developer of saddle
horses of this city, gives his views on
the suggestion to divide saddle horse
show classifications into two sections,
one for the park and the other for the
road. He says:
Lexington, Ky., Feb. 22, 190G.
To the Editor of the Rider and Driver:
Replying to your query, I quite reluctantly present my ideas on the merits of
a division of the saddle classes into road
and park hacks. Permit me, first, to recognize your past efforts in behalf of the
saddle horse and your no less commendable ambition in this instance; but I can
not see that any beneficial results could
be obtained. I am seriously opposed to
the term "hack" being applied to a show
All livery establishments
hack horses for hire; the riding school
also; and is saddle horses are classified
as road hacks in horse shows, why not
classes for all other kinds of hack or
Besides, would the exhibitors so grade
I think not.
And whence are the judges to come who
would do this?
In corroboration of this idea, Mr. Gooch,
the most capable of officials in this capacity, evidenced by the insistency
which he has been .retained year aster
year by the National Association (a merit
him by no
means) did not prove that he could be
equal to such a task.
Do not understand me as casting reflections unon Mr. Gooch, since I know
nothing against his principles; but I differ from him, and to show that he was
not consistent in his types, we will bring
it down to his awards in th'e champion
classes at Madison Square Garden last
In the smaller division a veritable "peacock" was placed first the reserve going
to a "road hack" that is, is he was any
sort of a saddle horse at all.
In the larger division, a road-hac- k
was placed first, a peacock getting the
reserve. Here was ao complete a reversal
that the judge was plainly inconsistent.
In conversation with Mr. Gooch (and
we had several pleasant chats) I said to
"I have studied you closely, and the
results of your work the past week were
more confusing than ever. No man," I
said, "can deal in thoroughbred saddle
horses without ultimately landing in Sing
Sing, and what bothers me most, since
you sometimes reverse your opinion, is to
guess when to enter what I call a show
"What, Mr. Gooch, is your opinion of
Forest King?" I added.
"For his job that of a sensational
show harness horse there is not a horse
in the world that can beat him," answered
"You think, then, that the National
call for show
Horse Show classes
"How, then, can you acquit yourself of
your awards in giving a show horse first,
in one championship, and anything but a
show horse first in the other?"
His answer was:
"Poetry of Motion"
show horse) "is not my sort of a horse;
Jubilant" (not a show horse) "is."
It may be remembered that the National
had a class for thoroughbred saddle horses
last fall and that the winner thereof (Jubilant) was also winner of the championship in the regular saddle events. My
view, then, I think is correct, i. e., that
an exhibitor will make his entry into
each and eyery possible class and that,
therefore, to add another for "road hacks"
can hardly prove advantageous.
Why can not a judge be sound equal to
the job of picking out one show saddle
horse, selecting his second and third ribbon wearers as nearly like the first as the
My idea is that horse shows stand for
show horses which means
type, excessive style, showy, elastic action, brought out in the most attractive
form, through training and good manners.
These qualities and characteristics make
Forest King a sensational show harness
horse. Why not a sensational show saddle horse?
Your presentation of the two types (park
and road) viz., Patsie McCord and Ken
sington, could not be improved upon.
I have a wonderfully sine lot of horses
to put on the market this spring better I
never owned They are representative in
type, are clever goers and are thoroughly
C. L. RAILEY.
Commenting on Mr. Railey's communication, the Rider and Driver published the following editorial:
In another column appears an interest-
ing contribution on the subject of saddle
horses from that well known authority,
Charles L. Railey. We regret that Mr.
Railey does not agree with us in the suggestion to make a division between park
and road hacks. In our opinion he takes
a hasty view when he says that is there
are classes for road saddle horses "why
not classes for all other kinds of hack or
knockabout horses?" There "are classes
for other "road" horses, as distinguished
from their "park" congeners, notably for
"road teams" and "park teams," in
and at Philadelphia and some
other shows, there is a distinction made
between "town" and "road" horses in the
classes for heavy
harness horses. As to the use of the
term "hack,." we do not believe the cultivated classes, "who own high class saddle and harness horses, such as go to
shows, would take the demeaning view of
it; we are sure Col. Railey does not do so
himself and that he is calling attention
to it only through sear of the masses'
it by taking the cue
from the livery stable. The word is no
doubt of opprobrious origin and, although
understood by the cognoscente to apply
to the saddle horse, we will heed the remonstrance and adopt some other expression. But we trust that the
"practical" title of "saddler" which, like
"tallyho," applied to every form of coach,
has come into vogue among some who
must be lazy and ignorant as well as a
sew writers of slovenly English may
never be adopted.
to thev truly practical in life, we
feel, with Ruskin and Whistler and Morris and others that, as Addison says:
"So the pure limpid stream, when soul
Works itself clear and, as it runs, refines."
Mr. Railey says the exhibitor would enter his horse in every class, whether it be
of park or road type, and wonders who
the judges might "be that would separate
the types. It is true, as he says, that
Mr. Gooch, the judge at Madison Square
Garden, "mixed those babies up," but we
do not agree with Mr. Railey's hopeless
implication that we are to have Mr.
Gooch thrust down our throats forever,
nor that there are no other judges capable of doing the trick. Besides, is the
classes were definite as to specifications,
the exhibitors, provided, of course, that
the judges followed out the conditions
called for, would soon become educated, is
not so beforehand.
Mr. Railey quotes Gooch as sollows:
"Poetry of Motion is not my sort of a
horse; Jubilant is."
Our readers need not be reminded that
Mr. Railey is one of the leading saddle
horse experts in America and that Mr.
Gooch is a dealer in horses who for the
past sour years has been brought over
from England each year by the National
Horse Show Association of America to
teach Mr. Railey and all the rest of
American saddle horse trainers, dealers
and amateurs that, prior to his coming,
their ideas as to what constituted the
"correct type" of saddle horse were all
wrong. The horse which Mr. Railey declares Mr. Gooch admitted was "not my
sort of a horse" was the horse elevated
by Mr. Gooch to the very pinnacle of
prominence ostensibly as his ideal. And,
strange to relate, this horse is a most
exaggerated example of the very type
which Mr. Gooch announced at the outset of his American career as a judge
in the show ring (we believe he has had
no similar career "at
home," in England) was to be obliterated, namely, the
"peacock" type. Now, is Mr. Railey reports Mr. Gooch accurately what are we
to think of Mr. Gooch? Was he not, to
say the least, more than inconsistent? Ignoring all other phases of Mr. Gooch's
relationship to some of the officers of the
National Horse Show Association and certain exhibitors who have won so conspicuously, that act alone should convict
him at once of incompetency or worse.
By such an admission as that which Mr.
Railey quotes him as having made, he confesses that for some consideration or another he stultified his conscience and be
trayed his judgment.
Is a judge is not
to judge upon the merits of the horses
before him and in accordance with his
own ability to determine those merits,
he is either the tool of some one else or a
dawdling idiot. Is Poetry of Motion is
not Mr. Gooch's kind of a horse why did
he give that horse the championship?
Can the National Horse Show Association,
which so strenuously stands sponsor for
Mr. Gooch, answer this question?
has not given the matter attention it certainly should lok into it at once, as
such statements, made publicly by one
of the most prominent horsemen and exhibitors in America, can hardly pass
without adding to the scandal that has
already grown out of the saddle horse
decisions at Madison Square Garden during the past sour years!
Mr. F. W. Okie, owner of Jubilant,
now comes forward in reply to Mr. Railey. Mr. Okie is a breeder of hunters
and jumpers at his Virginia farm. At
the winter thoroughbred sales here at
Lexington the past two years he has
bought a number of thoroughbred
mares, the most of them cheap, with
this object in view. He says in defense
of Mr. Gooch:
Saturday, March 3rd, 190G.
To the Editor of the Rider and Driver:
Sir: The Rider and Driver has for
some time past seen sit to criticise the
iudgment rendered by Mr. Gooch, the
judge of saddle horses for the last sew
years at Madison Sauare Garden.
I grant that criticising is always in
order and through it the masses are educated and the horse world benefitted.
i have just read in the Rider and Driver
written by Railey, the dealer,
v. hi rein he says Mr. Gooch is inconsistent as he gave the "peacock" type tha
championship in the small class and the
type the championship in tha
have no idea of writing about the
virtues of our horse Jubilan, or
the many qualities of "Poetry of
Motion," but I think it only fair that
there should be something said for the
of purpose of Mr. Gooch.
iguing from the Railey standpoint
was it not better that a good "road" typ?
be j.iven the championship class over an
inferior "peacock" type?
This is what Mr. Gooch thought he waa
Likewise, in the smaller class, he gave
Poetry of Motion the championship over
an inferior road type (Lee Rogers).
Miss Beach, in an interview with a well
known horse weekly, expressed the whole
affair in a nutshell when she said:
"Entirely different types, but undoubtedly the best in their respective classes."
There is every reason for dealers to be
against the thoroughbred type, such as
Jubilant represents, because, as Railey
expresses it in his letter, "No man can
deal in thoroughbred saddle horses without ultimately landing in Sing Sing." Presumably, no one could make a living
handling them, as it is impossible to get
enough of them at a price that could be
sold to advantage.
As a rule, most of the
thoroughbreds are race horses; the balance are trained until their dispositions
are so thoroughly spoiled that they are
unfit to be ridden. On the other hand,
there are thousands of Kentucky saddle
horses that the dealer can handle at a
No one realizes more than Mr. Gooch
how difficult it is to get the proper foundation in a thoroughbred for a saddle
horse, and it might be interesting to your
readers to know that he offered us $3,000
for Jubilant to take to England, and
Kith the understanding he would never be
shown in America. This offer was refused, not with the idea that the horse
was worth more, but merely as a matter
To know Jubilant and his
disposition is to make any lover of a
horse worship him. The horse was never raced, consequently he still retains
those qualities which all thoroughbreds
F. W. OKIE.
Cloud Carmon, the Government Experimental Sire, also Partly of that Lineage." The article is for the most part
a compilation of matter recently published in The Kentucky Farmer and
Breeder. It opens with the following
So much has been written
against the .United States Government's
experiment in breeding for the production of a typical American heavy harness
horse that the Rider and Driver deems it
not only interesting but instructive and
patriotic however much we may have
disagreed with the promoters
scheme, in regard to their methods to
give the subject as it progresses due consideration.
Our readers are familiar with the stand
we have taken against the theory that the
admitted "accidents" of the justly famous
light harness horse should be selected as
foundation stock for the evolution of a
horse to work in heavy leather, pull
heavy vehicles and comprise the opposite
of race horse conformation,
knee and hock action. For generations
the bredeers of the light harness horse
have been striving to get away from those
their aim bing to
obtain a speed machine, with a long, narrow structure and low, frictionless action.
Any thing approaching "coachiness" in
any of the get of a light harness horse's
ancestry has always been deemed a bar
sinister, and the produce that might display such tendencies regarded as a disgrace to sire and usually thrust to the
discredit of the dam. It is, therefore, we
deem it, an incontrovertible
heavy harness types of such a breed are
anomalies, pure and simple, and to breed
from them on the theory that "like begets like" means generations of descent
before that type can be fixed. The law
of atavism, which controls the
tendency of any
race, i. e., the inheritance of characteristics from ancestors several generations
agone, must be considered, and not only
must the selections of individual sire and
dam be carefully made, but the subsequent matings of their progeny and their
progeny's progeny must be likewise effected with consistent discrimination.
That there have been horses successful
in heavy harness with light harness ancestry there is no denying, as instance the
show ring victories. One of these is the
subject of our frontispiece, the great Red
Cloud, formerly owned by the late William L. Elkins, of Philadelphia, and at last
accounts drawing a brougham in Boston
for Mr. Thomas W. Lawson.
It may be noted from the pedigree of
Red Cloud, however, which we find traced
by the pen of J. Gano Johnson, Esq., in
The Kentucky Farmer and Breeder, that
he is by a sire of the strongest possible
lines of sturdy Morgan and thoroughbred
blood, viz., Indian Chief. This horse was
by Blood's Black Hawk, he by Vermont
Black Hawk, he by Sherman Morgan, he
by Sherman Morgan, sounder of the breed.
Some of the advocates of other breeds
have scoffed at the idea that there is today any directly Morgan line of breeding
traceable back to its foundation source.
On the dam side Indian Chief goes back
to the imported thoroughbred Grand Bashaw and imported Messenger.
The Rider and Driver then copies
the major portion of Mr. Johnson's article on Indian Chief, including the
Dills card and the letter of Mr. Railey.
It concludes with a portion of Mr. Geo.
M. Rommel's address before the Kansas Board of Agriculture, first published in The Kentucky Farmer and Breeder.
The Rider and Driver is in error in
the statement that Mr. Thomas W.
Lawson's Red Cloud is by Indian Chief.
The confusion evidently arises from
the reference by Mr. Dills to a son of
Indian Chief called Red Cloud. The
latter was the sire of the dam of Mr.
Lawson's horse, which, by the way, is
known as Glorious Red Cloud, and
which is by King. The distinction is
clearly brought out in the following
letter from the Emerald Chief Stock
Farm to The Kentucky Farmer and
Breeding of R.ed Cloud
In its issue of March 3 the Rider and Toand Breeder: of The Kentucky Farmer
Driver publishes an article under the
Sir: It is with pleasure we draw for
heading: "American Trotter for Heavy some of your readers and yourself a disHarness Morgan Blood Prominent in tinction between two glorious horses,
the Ancestors of the Famous Red Red Cloud 2197, by Indian Chief 1718, and