“In answer to the question whether, from the form of a horse

at rest, it can be ascertained what gait would be easiest

assumed by it, viz., trotting or pacing, I must confess that

I have never seen, read or heard of such marks, and, indeed,

there never are any symptoms or signs of inclination for pacing

in the proportions of any horse with the single negative

exception, viz., that great speed in one-sided motion does not

agree with a large frame, which is more adapted to leaping, and

hence fast pacers are never found among large horses.”

This is the view as taken by a Russian scientist of the distinction, or

rather lack of distinction, between the trotter and the pacer. I have

not quoted this paragraph from Prof. Mittendorf because it contained

anything new in the economy of breeding, but to prove that there were

pacers in Russia and that their relation to the trotter was considered in

the formation of the rules of admission to the Orloff trotting register.

A very intelligent writer, evidently a Russian and one who knew what he

was talking about, contributed an interesting article to the New York

_Sun_ of July 9, 1877, from which we get a clear and strong light on the

practical side of the Russian pacer, and I will here again quote:

“Up to the middle of the last century horses in Russia were

not scientifically bred; they ran wild in many parts of the

country. Those caught on the steppes of the river Don, and

in the wilderness of the district of Viatka, obtained early

celebrity, which they still maintain. The Don horses are those

famous Cossack steeds about which so much has been written of

late. The Viatka horses, or Bitugues, as they are called are

the genuine trotters of Russia. They are all pacers, equally

remarkable for their speed and their endurance. But since

the Orloff breed has been introduced, the Bitugues have been

excluded from all matches, on the ground that their pacing is

not orthodox.

“It is with these Bitugues that the peculiar troika team, of

which a specimen was shown in Fleetwood Park, on Saturday,

originated. A fast, sturdy Bitugue is put in shafts, and a

light running horse from the steppes harnessed on each side of

him. A good Bitugue trots so fast that the wild steppe runners

have to be whipped all the time to force them to keep up with

him. The idea of putting an Orloff trotter in the place of a

Bitugue is very queer, as no square trotter can equal the speed

of those famous pacers of Viatka, and keep abreast with side

runners.”

From these three several sources we learn a number of facts that may

have a more or less important bearing upon the true origin of the Orloff

trotter. (1) That there are now, and have been for generations past,

plenty of pacers in Russia. (2) That these pacers have a common habitat,

north and east of the Don. (3) That they are a very old race, running

back in the centuries away beyond the knowledge of man or the records of

history. (4) That they are a very fast and very enduring race, and that

they have been trained for generations as the shaft horses of the troika

and their speed so well developed as to require good running horses

to keep abreast with them. (5) That they are of smaller size than the

average and lack symmetry, and thus, notwithstanding their great speed

and bottom, they and their blood are excluded from registration with the

Orloffs. (6) That they are also excluded from competing for any prizes

that may be offered, and no other reason is suggested than that they

would be sure to win.

Russia and America both have pacers and they are both carrying forward

the breeding and development of the trotter with great intelligence and

success. No other nation has been able to make even a beginning in this

field of animal economy except by the introduction of the foundation

stock from one or other of these two countries. It may be taken as

historically true, and as applying to every nation on the face of the

earth, that where there are no pacers there are no trotters. Hundreds of

unmistakable experiences in this country go to show that the pacer is a

great source of trotting speed. At one time a pacing stallion of obscure

pacing origin stood at the head of the list of all stallions as the sire

of the greatest number of trotters with fast records. A great multitude

of our fastest trotters at maturity were foaled pacers from trotting

parents. It is no longer a matter of wonder or surprise that with two

animals from the same parents one of them should be a fast trotter and

the other a fast pacer. Neither is it any longer remarkable that a fast

trotter with a very fast record should turn around and make just as fast

a record at the pace. The American people are just beginning to realize,

in its full force, the declaration of more than twenty years ago; that

the trot and the pace are simply two forms of the same gait, in the

economy of motion. The only difference that has been observed as between

two brothers, the one a pacer and the other a trotter, is that with the

same skill in handling the pacer will come to his speed much quicker than

the trotter, which is of itself a strong suggestion at least that the

pace is the more natural and easier form of the one gait.

Now, in view of the fact that Smetanka was of Saracenic origin—a strain

of blood that has always been antagonistic to the pacer, and never

produced a pacer or a trotter; and in view of the fact that his grandson,

Barss, is accepted as the first of all Orloff trotters; and in view of

the further fact that in thousands of American experiences the trotter

has come from the pacer, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion that the

“Dutch Mare” that produced Barss had a strong pacing inheritance, and

possibly had her speed fully developed, as the Bitugue in the count’s own

team.

Among all the pleasures which Count Orloff derived from his experiments

in breeding, whether of gamecocks, or race horses, or saddlers, or

trotters, Barss was his greatest favorite because he was his highest

achievement in the art of breeding. This judgment of his master has been

confirmed in the experiences and history of all succeeding generations

for a hundred years, and the name of Barss will be known through the

coming centuries as the founder of a mighty breed of trotters. I once

possessed a fine picture of Barss hitched to a sleigh and driven by his

breeder, Count Orloff, himself; and I have seen it stated somewhere that

this picture was a copy of a bronze statue erected to the memory of the

Count Orloff and the greatest horse of Russia.

It has been stated by some writers, but with what measure of authority

I do not know, that for about thirty years after the appearance of

Barss his daughters were bred to English thoroughbreds, to Arabs, to

Anglo-Arabs, and, indeed, to all the highly bred crosses that the great

establishment was able to furnish, and there was no improvement in either

the quality or the speed of the produce. From this it is evident that

the count and his managers were at that period entangled in the same

foolish notions that befogged the minds of so many very worthy gentlemen

in this country some years ago, viz., that the way to improve the trotter

was to go to the runner—the horse that never could trot. This foolish

notion, that never had a spark of reason in it, naturally and necessarily

weakened the trotting instinct of the descendants of Barss, and would

have wiped it all out if it had been followed persistently, and there

would have been no Orloff trotters to-day.

After this narrow escape from the annihilation of much of the good that

Barss had done, the management then began to look for the same blood and

the same habit of action that the “Dutch Mare” transmitted to her son,

and, with this element to the front, progression was resumed. Out of his

great variety of forms and of strains of blood the count and his managers

could pick and choose for the size, shape and forms they wanted, but they

were not able to transfer with the size, shape and form the instincts and

psychical nature of the horse. The count seems to have carried forward

his great enterprise rather with a view to experimentation than its

commercial possibilities. Smetanka lived but a year or two, and when

he stumbled upon the production of Barss, a magnificent individual and

a great trotter, his head seems to have been turned, as he evidently

supposed that he could breed any kind of horse he wished to breed, and

be able to do anything he wished him to do. At his death, in 1808, he

left no male heir to succeed him, but he provided in his will that his

stud should not be dispersed. It was kept intact till about 1845, when it

was purchased by the government, and finally divided among a number of

prominent breeders in different portions of the empire.

Without having any knowledge on the subject that is definite and

specific, I am led to infer that the rules on registration and racing in

Russia are a hindrance to the breeding and development of the trotter.

As I understand it, no horse can be registered unless he is purely

descended from Barss. And I understand further, that he must possess

the same requirements in order to enter and start in a public race

against the Orloffs. If it be true that these restrictions are really in

existence and are enforced, we can understand why the American trotter is

so far ahead of the Orloff in speed and in the markets of Europe. The

Orloff is restricted to certain lines of blood and is protected against

competition from others that might beat him. The American is free from

all restrictions of blood and gathers up all that is best and fastest. He

neither asks nor accepts protection from any quarter, but throws down the

glove to all comers.

BELLFOUNDER was imported from England, July, 1822, by James Boott, of

Boston, Mass. He was placed in the hands of Samuel Jaques, Jr.—a very

shrewd manager who understood the use of printer’s ink and did not

hesitate about employing it liberally. In his advertisement for 1823 he

says: “This celebrated horse is a bright bay with black legs, standing

fifteen hands high.” From this we are safe in concluding he was not

more than fifteen hands, and from another contemporaneous source it

is learned that he was a little below that measurement. On this point

the recollections, or perhaps impressions, of Orange County horsemen

are not very trustworthy, as one of them places his height at sixteen

hands and others at fifteen and a half. His pedigree was given on the

card which was distributed by his groom in the form following: “Got

by old Bellfounder, out of Velocity by Haphazard, by Sir Peter out

of Miss Hervey by Eclipse.” “Velocity trotted on the Norwich road in

1806, sixteen miles in one hour, and although she broke five times

into a gallop, and as often turned round, she won her match.” Although

after diligent search I have not been able to find this performance

of Velocity, it may be true that a mare so named may have trotted as

represented, but she was not a daughter of Haphazard. The dates make this

utterly impossible, and Mr. Jaques was smart enough never to put this

humbug pedigree in his elaborate advertisements that appeared in the

leading agricultural papers of the country, year after year.

As the great mass of people of that day knew nothing and cared but little

about pedigrees, the astute manager of the horse struck an expedient in

the way of advertising that was very effective. He had a cut made of a

horse trotting loose on the road, at the rate of a hurricane, and in

the background was an entablature with the legend “Seventeen and a half

miles an hour,” which anybody and everybody would interpret to mean that

this was a record made by imported Bellfounder, and there he was doing

it. This cut in reduced form went the rounds of the agricultural press,

and in 1831 made its appearance in the “Family Encyclopedia of Useful

Knowledge.” This dodge was exceedingly effective, and as it appeared in

a book it must be true. Thousands of people interpreted the picture to

mean that imported Bellfounder had trotted seventeen and a half miles

in an hour. Mr. Jaques did not say this in letters and figures, but he

said it even more plainly in a picture. The basis of this deception is

found in the advertisement itself, where, in speaking of the speed of old

Bellfounder in England, he says: “His owner challenged to perform with

him seventeen miles and a half in one hour, but it was not accepted.”

Here we have a possible challenge of the sire transmuted into an actual

performance of the son, for the sole purpose of securing public patronage.

There can be no doubt that this horse was a true representative of what

was then known as the Norfolk Trotters and at this time designated as

Hackneys or Cobs. Bellfounder was of a quiet, docile disposition, with a

display of great nervous energy in his movements when aroused. His knee

and hock action was high and showy, giving the impression of a great

trotter, without much speed. At several points his form was measurably

reproduced in Hambletonian, especially in his low, round withers and his

great, meaty buttocks. In seeing these points so plainly developed in his

idol it is not remarkable that Mr. Rysdyk should have placed too high an

estimate on Bellfounder blood as a factor in the American trotting horse.

If he had thoughtfully asked himself the question, What has Bellfounder

blood done in its own right in the way of getting trotters? the illusion

would have vanished.

Bellfounder was in the control of Mr. Jaques for six years, and never

in my knowledge of trotting stallions have I known one so widely and

successfully advertised. The name “Bellfounder” was heard and known

everywhere. From 1829 to 1833, inclusive, he was under the control of

Mr. T. T. Kissam, of Long Island. After that time he seems to have gone

“a-begging” wherever there seemed to be a chance to earn his oats. At

last, at Jamaica, Long Island, he died, having made twenty-one seasons

in this country—one more than Messenger. The question was once raised

as to where Hambletonian got his aversion to the chestnut color, and it

was flippantly assigned to Bellfounder. The truth is, quite a number of

Bellfounder’s get were chestnuts, perhaps as large a percentage as would

naturally come from the average stallion.

It is the testimony of several gentlemen who were familiar with trotting

affairs in the time of the Bellfounders, that a number of them were

skillfully and persistently trained and none of them could trot faster

than about 2:50. The one exception to this fact so widely established

is the case of the dam of Hambletonian. After this filly passed into

the hands of Peter Seely he gave some attention irregularly to the

development of her speed, and before he sold her he gave her two trials

to saddle on the Union Course and she trotted in 2:43 and 2:41. As she

was then but four years old it is safe to conclude that she would have

made a trotter, beyond all doubt. This is the only one, old or young,

from the loins of Bellfounder that ever trotted so fast. I once put the

question directly to Mr. Rysdyk as to whether the Kent Mare was as good

and as fast as her dam, One Eye, and he promptly replied that One Eye was

much the faster and greater mare. To this answer he added that One Eye,

under the same circumstances, would have been the equal of Lady Thorn or

any other that ever lived. This may account for the superiority of the

Kent Mare over all the other Bellfounders, and it may account for the

superiority of Hambletonian over all other stallions.

BELLFOUNDER (BROWN’S OR KISSAM’S), was a bay horse, foaled 1830, got by

imported Bellfounder; dam Lady Alport, by Mambrino, son of Messenger;

grandam by Tippoo, son of Messenger; great-grandam by imported Messenger.

With such breeding he should have been a great horse. He was bred by

Timothy T. Kissam, of Long Island, and sold along with a full brother one

year younger, named Bellport, about 1834-5, to L. F. and A. B. Allen,

of Buffalo, New York. Bellfounder was a bay horse, sixteen hands high,

and Bellport was sixteen and one-half hands, but was poisoned and died

at four years old. Bellfounder passed into the hands of some parties at

Cleveland and then to Mr. Brown, of Columbus, Ohio, made most of his

seasons in that portion of the State, and died September, 1860. This was

altogether the most valuable son the imported horse left—indeed the only

one that made any mark in the world. He was not much of a trotter and did

not get trotters, but got colts that were excellent types of the coach

horse, and for that purpose was very highly esteemed. Some of his sons

and daughters, especially the latter, are met with sometimes in trotting

records as having produced something that had more or less speed.

CONQUEROR was a bay gelding, foaled 1842, and got by La Tourrett’s

Bellfounder, a grandson of the imported horse, and out of Lady McClain by

imported Bellfounder, and she out of Lady Webber by Mambrino, and she out

of a mare brought from Dutchess County and represented to be a daughter

of imported Messenger. This gelding had been pounded about in slow races

for years and had the reputation of being a stayer. In 1853 a match

was made with him to trot a hundred miles in nine hours. The race was

started and the horse won in 8h. 55m. and 53s., and he died three or four

days afterward. This is the only instance that I know of in which the

advocates of Hackney blood can point to a trotting record made in this or

indeed in any other country.

In closing the account of this family—for out of courtesy we have called

it a “family”—we find we have nothing left but a name with nothing in it.

The name that was more widely known than that of any other horse of his

generation has now practically ceased from the earth, with nobody so poor

as to do it reverence.

The type of horse now known as the “Hackney” is found chiefly in the

shires bordering the northeastern coast of England—Norfolk, Lincoln and

Yorkshire. The name now given is not only new but it is appropriate and

applies to any one part of England as well as another, and applies to any

one horse, suited to the general use of a Hack, as well as another, no

difference what his blood or what his country. The name “Norfolk Trotter”

fifty or a hundred years ago was often applied to horses of this type

coming from that part of the country, but it did not follow that they

were “trotters.” In the discussions of the association preceding the

adoption of a name it was urged that the qualifying word “trotter” would

imply the ability to trot fast, and as the material to be registered

could not do this, it would subject the whole movement to ridicule and

contempt. It was also urged that the name “Norfolk” would give that

particular region an advantage over all other parts of England in the

prospective sales of registered stock, and thus the old title was fully

disposed of. When the name “cob” was suggested, it was conceded that it

represented just what they had, but it was too common, as everybody in

all England, rich and poor, had “cobs.” Then came the term “Hackney,”

which meant the same kind of a horse as the cob, but as it was not in

such universal use it was adopted. On this point it must be admitted

that it is an honest name.

The Hackney is a good horse for all the uses to which he is adapted. He

is short on his legs and stout, with a good share of nervous energy. He

is symmetrical, and, we might say, handsome, if we can use that word

without any show of fine breeding, for he is far short of the ideal blood

horse. But he is not a saddle horse, he is not a hunter, he is not a

runner, and he is not a trotter. As against these desirable and useful

qualifications, he has been bred and trained when in action to jerk up

his limbs to the highest point anatomically possible, and put them down

again with a thud at a point but little removed from where he started. In

this showy, undesirable action he exhausts his nervous energy, pounding

the earth without covering much of the distance. In this excessive knee

action every element of easy, graceful and rapid progression is wanting.

This fad will have its day and then along with the barbarous excision of

the caudal appendage they will disappear together as they came, and we

will know them no more forever.

There are two points in advocating the merits of the Hackney with which

every Englishman is thoroughly familiar and which he will call to your

attention on the slightest provocation: (1) Bellfounder was a Hackney and

it was his blood that gave us the greatest trotting sire that the world

has ever produced. This is the Englishman’s estimate of Bellfounder when

he has a Hackney for sale, and especially if the prospective purchaser

be an American. (2) He is descended from a long line of distinguished

trotters. To the first of these reiterated and parrot-like claims an

answer will be found in the chapter relating to that horse, where his

twenty-one years of stud service have been carefully considered, and

where he is shown to have been a monumental failure. In the second claim

there is some truth and we must consider it very briefly.

Of all the elements entering into the families of horses locally and

indefinitely called Norfolk Trotters, there were two that might be looked

upon as the founders—Useful Cub and Shales—for they were more conspicuous

and valuable than any others. Mr. John Lawrence was not only a practical

horseman, but he was the most intelligent and reliable of all the writers

on the horse in the latter part of the last century. He was the only one

who gave any attention to the trotter and trotting affairs. He says: “To

old Shales and Useful Cub the Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk are

indebted for their fame in the production of capital Hackneys.” Useful

Cub was bred by Thomas Jenkinson, of Long Sutton in Lincolnshire, and

was foaled about 1865-70, and was got by a Suffolk cart horse, doubtless

a light weight, and his dam was by Golden Farmer, a son of the famous

half-bred Sampson, that was the great-grandsire of Messenger and beat

most of the best horses of his day. Mr. Lawrence knew Useful Cub well,

and was beaten by him in Hyde Park. We have no details of this horse’s

performances, but it seems to be conceded that he trotted fifteen,

sixteen and seventeen miles in the hour. Old Shales, or Scott’s Shales,

as he is sometimes called, is described by Lawrence as “the bastard son

of Blank,” son of Godolphin Arabian, but Mr. Euren, the compiler of the

Hackney Stud Book maintains that he was the son of Blaze and not the

son of Blank. The reasons given for this change I do not remember, but

they would have to be well founded before I could throw overboard the

contemporaneous evidence of Mr. Lawrence. It will not do to say that Mr.

Lawrence mistook the name Blaze for Blank and so wrote it by mistake,

for he knew all about both horses. This distinction, however, is of but

little practical value. The horses Shales and Useful Cub were both fast

and successful trotters, in their day, and they both became distinguished

sires of trotters. By this I do not mean that they were the sires of

all the trotters, for there were many that were wholly unknown in their

breeding.

Judging from the numbers of leading contests that were reported in

the _Sporting Magazine_ and other publications, we must conclude that

trotting contests reached their height as well in numbers as in public

interest about the last decade in the last century. The contests were all

to saddle, on the road, and the leading ones were made under the watch

and over a long distance of ground, specifying such or such a distance

to be made inside of an hour. To form a correct estimate of the speed of

those horses, I will copy one paragraph, entire, from the description

given by Mr. Lawrence concerning his own mare Betty Bloss:

“My own brown mare, known by the name of Betty Bloss, was the

slowest of all the capital trotters, but at five years old

trotted fifteen miles in one hour, carrying fourteen stone,

although fairly mistress of no more than ten. She afterward

trotted sixteen miles within the hour, with ten stone, with

much ease to herself and her rider. She was nearly broken down

at four years old, had bad feet, and, besides, too much blood

for a trotter, having been got by Sir Hale’s Commoner, out of a

three-part-bred daughter of Rattle, son of Snip.”

In this paragraph, from the best-informed man of his generation, it

will be noted incidentally that the cry, “no more running blood in

the trotter,” is not new, but more than a hundred years old. The best

performances were about sixteen miles in the hour, but there was an

occasional one that reached sixteen and a half. A black gelding called

Archer was recognized as the fastest of that period, and on one occasion

under a stop watch he trotted the second one of two miles in a little

less than three minutes. From my gleanings I find but a single instance

from which we might be able to approximate the money value of trotting

horses of that day, and this is given as a phenomenal price, viz.,

Marshland Shales, a paternal grandson of the original Shales and out

of a mare by Hue and Cry. He had beaten Reed’s Driver in a match of

seventeen miles for 200 guineas. He was foaled 1802 and in 1812 he

was sold at auction for 3,051 guineas—$15,255. He was a great horse,

but this price was just as startling to Englishmen of that day as the

$105,000 was in our own day, when Axtell was sold. This seems to have

been the culmination of the “boom” in Norfolk Trotters, and from then

till the present there has been a steady deterioration in the trotting

step of the Norfolk horse. In the earlier part of this period of eighty

or ninety years, possibly some exceptions may be found, but they are

only individual exceptions and do not controvert the broad fact that

must be apparent to all observers. They had been breeding and training

their horses to strike their chins with their knees—the up-and-down

motion—instead of getting away and covering some ground in their action.

I have stood and watched scores of them in the show-ring, on their native

heath, with their grooms at the ends of long lines running and yelling

like wild Indians to rouse up their horses, and they called this training

the trotters. When I privately expressed the wish that saddles might

be put on a few of the best and the ring cleared so that the trotting

action might be studied, I was very kindly and politely assured that

they did not show their trotters that way in England. Thus with the

taut check-rein, the long leading-line and the whoops of the groom they

got the up-and-down action upon the perfection of which the prizes were

awarded. This explained why the splendid foundation of a breed had been

lost by non-use and why England had produced no trotters in the past

fifty or eighty years.

While our English cousins know they have no trotting horses of their own

they seem to be exceedingly anxious, possibly for commercial reasons, to

make it appear that the American trotting horse is the lineal descendant

of the Norfolk Trotter. This effort is not restricted to the idle

twaddle about Bellfounder, which everybody on this side of the Atlantic

estimates at its true value, but it has taken an official and wider

range, which, trifling though it be, my duty as a historian impels me

to expose. Mr. Henry P. Euren, the compiler of the Hackney Stud Book,

wrote to the Commissioner of Agriculture, at Washington, D. C., in 1888,

taking exceptions to some conclusions reached in an article written by

Mr. Leslie E. Macleod, in my office, on “The National Horse of America,”

and published in the report of the Department of Agriculture for 1887;

Mr. Euren claiming that the American trotting horse came originally from

Norfolk, in England. In proof of this he says: “I beg to inclose you

a cutting which confirms my idea.” And now for the “cutting” which he

offers as proof:

“It appears from an Act of Parliament, passed December 6, 1748,

in the Legislature of the State of New Jersey, America, that on

and after the publication of this Act, all Norfolk pacing or

trotting of horses for lucre or gain, or for any sum or sums

of money at any time (excepting such times as are hereafter

expressly provided for by this Act), shall be and are hereby

declared public nuisances, provided always that at all fairs

that are or may be held within this province, and that on the

first working day after the three great festivals of Christmas,

Easter and Whitsuntide, etc., etc.”

The act passed by the provincial legislature of the colony of New Jersey

in 1748 embraced very stringent regulations against dice, lotteries,

etc., as well as horse racing. It is divided into several sections, and

at Section 4 we reach the provision against racing as follows:

“And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that

after the publication of this Act, all horse racing, pacing or

trotting of horses for lucre or gain, or for any sum or sums

of money at any time (excepting such times as are hereafter

expressly provided for and allowed by this Act), shall be and

are hereby declared public nuisances, and shall be prosecuted

as public nuisances, in manner hereinbefore directed. Provided

always, and it is the true intent and meaning of this Act, that

at all fairs that are or may be held within this province, and

that on the first working day after the three grand festivals

of Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide, etc., etc.”

These quotations are sufficiently extended to afford an unmistakable

comparison, and on their face evidence that cannot be doubted for one

moment that they both purport to be copied from the same act of the

Jersey Colonial legislature. In the official printed copy which is

before me as I write, the mandate is against “all horse racing, pacing

or trotting of horses for lucre or gain.” In Mr. Euren’s “cutting” the

mandate is against “all Norfolk pacing or trotting of horses for lucre

or gain,” etc. The substitution of the word “Norfolk” instead of “horse

racing,” is in the nature of a forgery, and I cannot believe that Mr.

Euren would be guilty of any such execrable piece of trickery. It must

have been conceived and written by some horse sharp who was trying to

sell a Hackney to an American with a pocket full of money, and after he

had effected his sale he could mutter quietly, when at a safe distance

from his victim, the couplet from “Hudibras:”

“The paltry story is untrue

And forged to cheat such gulls as you.”

Unfortunately, however, for Mr. Euren, he indorsed the trick, and not

only indorsed it, but sent it to the Commissioner of Agriculture with the

hope and possible expectation that it would receive public recognition

and become part of the horse history of this country. Did he not know

that somebody would be nosing round among the old laws and expose the

dirty deception? But, on the basis that Mr. Euren was deceived by this

wretched interpolation of a fraud into the law, could he not see that the

date of the law—1748—was before old Shales or Useful Cub was foaled, and

long before the very first “Norfolk trotter” was ever heard of either in

Norfolk or in any other part of England?

The exposure of this foolish attempt, wherever it originated, to

incorporate into an old New Jersey statute a fiction, or a forgery, as

it may be called, carries with it a punishment that should be felt by

the most unscrupulous of horse sharps; but when we find it unequivocally

indorsed and given to the world as true by the compiler of the Hackney

Stud Book, it destroys all confidence in the accuracy and reliability

of that work. This is a misfortune that the friends of the Hackney in

England as well as in this country must feel as a blow at the value of

the whole interest. Opinions may change with new light, and opposing

conclusions may be honestly reached from different standpoints, but

running against a fixed and certain date, as in this case, is like

running against a two-edged sword.

In conclusion, the Hackney is merely the dear-bought and far-fetched

fashion of the hour. A few years ago he was “something new in horses,”

just as the modiste has “something new in dresses.” He was found in

England, where there are no flies, without a tail, and as that was

the fashion in England we must have horses in America without tails,

notwithstanding the millions of torments they have to endure without

the natural means of defense. As hack-a-bouts they are good horses, but

their “churn-dasher” style of action will never become acceptable to the

American people.

A few years since a quite persistent attempt, backed by unlimited

wealth and all the prestige that metropolitan “fashion” and “society”

could bestow, was made, particularly in New York, to create a Hackney

“boom” in America. All that element in the social life of our great

cities that affects a disdain for things distinctively American, and

particularly for American horses, and that glories in the stultifying

habit of aping things “English, ye know,” took up the Hackney fad with

unbounded enthusiasm. As a park and road horse the American horse—the

incomparable trotting-bred driver—was to be incontinently crowded out

of the driveways, the markets and the shows. The National Horse Show

Association, whose annual show at Madison Square Garden is the great

social _fête_ of the year in New York, lent all its powerful influence

to forward the Hackney “boom,” which was, it must in fairness be said,

consistent; for the miscalled National Horse Show has always catered more

to foreign horses and foreign customs in horsemanship than to American

horses and horsemen. Men of great wealth and prominence established

extensive Hackney studs, imported famous prize-winning stallions and

mares, and there was only one thing left to be done, and that was to

convert the American people to the belief that the driving horse they had

been breeding and developing with a special purpose and care—the fleetest

and most versatile harness horse in the world—was inferior to an imported

nondescript. In that attempt the Hackney advocates have failed in America

as completely as did Mr. Blunt and others in England, when they sought to

make racing men believe that the Arab was a better race horse than the

English thoroughbred.

Perhaps nothing illustrates better what I have called the versatility

of the trotter than this contest with the Hackney in the latter’s own

especial field—if he may be said to have any. Of course there could be

no contest between the horse of a special breed and the nondescript as a

harness horse for speed or usefulness on the road, whether the distance

were half a mile or a hundred miles; but in the show-ring the Hackney

men claimed absolute pre-eminence for their “high-acting” horses. They

did not dare contest with the trotter in the matter of road speed, so

to have any contest at all the trotting horse men had to “carry the war

into Africa.” This they have done with a vengeance. They have taken the

pure-bred trotting horse, dressed him in the fashion dictated by the

Hackney “faddists,” taught him the Hackney tricks, the preposterous

Hackney action and all that, and have beaten the Hackneys not once but

time and again right on their own ground, viz., at the National Horse

Show in Madison Square Garden. In almost all cases in classes where

trotters have been admitted to compete with Hackneys, the former have

carried off the honors within the past two years. Many notable instances

might be cited, but one will suffice. At the National Horse Show, 1896, a

class was offered for “half-bred Hackneys,” sires to be shown with four

of their get. The Hackney end of the argument was upheld by Mr. A. J.

Cassatt’s renowned prize-winner, imported Cadet, with four of his get.

Against him was entered the well-known trotting sire Almont Jr., 2:26,

with four of his get, and though the judges were gentlemen identified

more or less with the Hackney interest, so superior in form, action and

style were the four youngsters by the trotting sire that they carried

away the honors from the chosen progeny of one of the most noted Hackney

show horses in the world.

In the sale ring this verdict has been corroborated. The highest

prices—the record figures—paid in the fashionable New York market for

park horses, “high steppers,” or by whatever name the merely spectacular

harness horse may from time to time be called, have been paid for

trotting-bred horses: and in advertised sales of “Hackneys” it has become

somewhat common to encounter half-trotting-bred and full-trotting-bred

horses.

While no genuine American and horseman can without regret see a typical

American horse mutilated and his action perverted in the manner required

to bring him into “Hackney” classes at the National Horse Show, or in

the markets where New York society people buy their stub-tailed horses,

it is some compensation to know that these experiments have demonstrated

the superiority of the American-bred horse even in the field claimed as

especially that of the Hackney. And the Hackney “fad” in America, while

it lasted, accomplished a good end in so far as it directed the attention

of American breeders more to the importance of form and style, and taught

them that in their own trotting families they have the material from

which may best be produced, in form and style and quality as well as in

speed, pre-eminently the most excellent park horses in the world.

CHAPTER XXIX.

INVESTIGATION OF DISPUTED PEDIGREES.

Tendency to misrepresentation—The Bald Galloway and

Darley Arabian— Godolphin Arabian—Early experiences with

trotting pedigrees—Mr. Backman’s honest methods—Shanghai

Mary—Capt. Rynders and Widow Machree—Woodburn Farm and

its pedigree methods—Victimized by “horse sharps” and

pedigree makers—Alleged pedigree of Pilot Jr. conclusively

overthrown—Pedigrees of Edwin Forrest, Norman, Bay Chief and

Black Rose—Maud S.’s pedigree exhaustively considered—Captain

John W. Russell never owned the mare Maria Russell—The deadly

parallel columns settle it.

A few years more than forty have slipped away since I first began to

give serious attention to the subject of horse history and to contribute

an occasional article to the press on that subject. Among my very

earliest observations, or I might say, experiences, was the realization

of the fact that exaggeration as a habit of thought and utterance was

practically universal among horsemen. Sometimes I have thought this

tendency to the untrue resulted from the ammoniacal exhalations of the

stable, but this thought is not a satisfactory solution, for some of the

greatest liars about horses have never known anything about stables.

Then, again, I have thought that a really skillful metaphysician might

write a learned disquisition of the question and satisfy himself as

to the cause of this moral delinquency, but nobody would be able to

understand him when he had completed it. This wretched vice, so prevalent

everywhere, was not restricted to the professional country “hoss jockey,”

ready to “swap” with every man he met on the road, but it reached up

to men of otherwise excellent character, and these men would “stretch

the blanket” tremendously about the blood and other qualities of the

horses they were selling. The only way we can account for an otherwise

honest and truthful man exaggerating the merits and blood of his horses

must be (1) in the fact that he has become attached to him and thinks

him better than he is, or it may be (2) that he bought with a false

pedigree and without examining it, he assumes it is true and represents

it accordingly. But underlying all this, the representation cannot be

disproved, and (3) it may add to the market value of the horse.

This weakness of human nature, so pervasive of all interests connected

with the horse, did not originate in this country, but came from the

old world. We inherit it from our ancestors. “The fathers have eaten

a sour grape and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” Take the case

of the little bald-faced, pacing-bred horse known in the old records

as “The Bald Galloway” and while it is not probable he had a single

drop of Saracenic blood in his veins, he is fitted out with a grand

pedigree, full of that blood. Although I have already referred to this

horse as an exemplification of the dishonesty of the early records of

English pedigrees, I will again look at it in a more specific manner.

He was nothing more nor less than a little native horse, belonging to a

tribe of noted pacers in the southwestern part of Scotland and in the

northern part of England. These Galloways were probably the very last

remnant of pacers to be found in Great Britain. He is represented in

the books to have been by a horse called “St. Victor’s Barb;” dam by

Whynot; grandam a Royal Mare. The Bald Galloway was foaled not later than

1708, and it was probably a few years earlier. His reputed sire, “St.

Victor’s Barb,” is not to be found anywhere and was probably fictitious.

His dam was represented to be by Whynot, and this horse was not foaled

till 1744—thirty-six years _after_ his grandson was foaled. The grandam

is given as a “Royal Mare,” which in that day was a convenient way of

rounding out a pedigree, just as we now attempt to round them out when

we know nothing of the blood by saying “dam thoroughbred.” “The Bald

Galloway” was one of the most successful stallions of his day, and yet

he was nothing in the world but a good representative of the old pacing

Galloways of that portion of Scotland then called Galloway. He was low

in stature, but he was esteemed as one of the greatest and most valuable

racing sires of his generation. One of his sons—the Carlisle Gelding—was

still a race horse when he was eighteen years old.

“The Darley Arabian” was contemporaneous with the Bald Galloway, and

they commenced service in England about the same year. It is said he was

brought from Aleppo, in Syria, or, perhaps I had better say Asia Minor.

Aleppo is but a short distance from the borders of ancient Cappadocia and

Cilicia, countries that were famous in history for the great numbers

of fine horses that they produced far more than a thousand years before

the first horse was taken to Arabia. This horse is called an “Arabian,”

and in the brief record of his importation we have the same venerable

“chestnut” served up to us that has served so many generations of

speculators in “Arabian blood.” The record says that Mr. Darley had a

brother who was an agent for merchandise abroad, who “became a member

of a hunting club, by which means he acquired interest to procure this

horse.” This “gag” has been played too often to give _éclat_ to horses

claimed to be brought from Arabia, in the past two hundred years, to

have much effect on the minds of people who have any sense. That it

required great social or political influence to induce the old Arab

sheik to part with him, was intended merely to secure the attention of

prospective customers to his superlative excellence in order to obtain

their patronage. This horse probably never was within five hundred miles

of the nearest part of Arabia, and to call him an Arabian is a misnomer

wholly unjustifiable. He came from a country where horses were abundant

and cheap on all sides, and of a quality far superior to any Arabian. He

was simply a Turk, he was for sale, and it required no influence to buy

him except the contents of the purchaser’s purse. This horse has always

been classed as one of the two great founders of the English race horse.

His progeny from well-bred mares were not numerous, and his greatest

distinction is in the fact that he was the sire of Flying Childers. In

accordance with the truth, he should be known in the records as “Darley’s

Turk.”

The horse bearing the dishonest misnomer of “Godolphin Arabian” was

really the greatest regenerator and upbuilder of the running horse that

England ever possessed. There seems to be no historical doubt that he

was brought from France, and that is all we know about his origin and

early history. It may be laid down, therefore, as a safe proposition,

that the odds are as a thousand to one that he was a French horse. The

only evidence that can ever be furnished as to the strain of blood that

he may have possessed must be found and studied in his portrait, which

appears in this volume. I believe this portrait to be a correct and

true delineation of the horse, and there is not a single lineament in

or about it that indicates the blood of either the Arabian or the Barb.

His pedigree is in his picture, and, from what is known in history and

from what has been preserved in art, instead of “Godolphin Arabian” his

true title should be “Godolphin Frenchman.” But this subject has been

discussed at greater length in the chapter on the English Race Horse, to

which my reader is here referred.

In the chapter on the American Race Horse, I think sufficient attention

has been given to the frauds and impossibilities that are to be found

everywhere in the extended pedigrees of our own running horses to satisfy

any one that the remote extensions of pedigrees are a great mass of

dishonest rubbish, with scarcely a speck of truth to be found. I will,

therefore, pass along to the consideration of some of the difficulties,

of the same nature, that have been developed in investigating and

recording the pedigrees of the American Trotting Horse. In entering the

untrodden wilderness of trotting-horse history it became the ambition

of my life to reach the truth in every possible instance and to cut

off and reject all frauds wherever they showed their heads. This meant

war from the beginning with a great many horsemen, but it also meant

the enthusiastic support of a great many honest men. The trouble, at

this point, was in the fact that a number of prominent, wealthy and

influential breeders insisted upon their right to state their pedigrees

in their own way and thus compel me to indorse them by inserting them in

the Trotting Register. When at work on the early volumes of the Register,

especially the first, if a man of unblemished reputation and intelligence

sent me a list of his stock to be registered, I assumed that he had too

much regard for his reputation and standing as a breeder to print a lot

of pedigrees in his catalogue that he did not _know_ to be correct, and

hence I accepted many a pedigree that was based upon fiction. In course

of time it began to dawn upon my understanding that there were many

men in the world of unsullied reputation, as they were known in their

business relations, who would stand up boldly for a fiction or a fraud in

the pedigrees of their stock. It is but just to say that all the men who

uttered fraudulent pedigrees were not equally guilty, for in some cases

the owners had been victimized by unscrupulous rogues from whom they

had purchased, and in others they had been betrayed by the still more

unscrupulous rogues whom they had employed to make up their catalogues on

the supposition that they were capable and honest. This state of things

soon developed another line of thought and observation in my mind which

evolved a rule by which I could determine the difference between the

degrees of honesty among horsemen. One man, when a fiction in a pedigree

was pointed out, would go to work and carefully investigate it; while

another would hang and higgle about it and finally investigate, not to

find the truth, but to find how many old rummies, swipes and negroes he

could get together, who would support his claim and swear to it for a

half-dollar each. The first man investigates to find the truth wherever

it may lead; while the second man investigates merely, not to find the

truth, but to find some kind of evidence to sustain the untruth. In the

everyday affairs of life these two men may stand on the same plane, but,

at heart, the one is honest and the other a rogue.

When Mr. Charles Backman founded the great Stonyford breeding farm in

Orange County, New York, he was an excellent horseman, in a general

sense, although he did not pretend to know much about pedigrees. About

1869 he placed all his pedigrees in my hands with the request that I

would give them a careful examination, strike out everything that was

wrong and note everything that was doubtful or uncertain, that it might

be investigated and the truth fully determined, no difference where it

might lead. Many investigations followed which were conducted by his

secretary, Mr. Shipman, either by mail or by personal visitation—so

many, indeed, that Mr. Shipman became quite an expert in this kind of

difficult work. As an illustration of the methods pursued, one instance

will serve to show how it was done, and more than this, it is a very

interesting history in itself. In the first volume of the Register I had

entered Green Mountain Maid, the dam of the famous Electioneer and all

that family, as “by Harry Clay, dam said to be by Lexington.” This was

the form in which Mr. Backman had received the pedigree, except that it

was stated positively and without any “said to be” that the dam was by

Lexington, the great running horse. After a time I called Mr. Backman’s

attention to this “said to be” and suggested that if the mare was really

a daughter of Lexington she could certainly be traced and established.

The next day, Mr. Shipman started to Western New York and to Ohio. On

his trip he found the mare had been known in Western New York as the

“Angelica Mare” and afterward as “Shanghai Mary,” that she was a trotter,

well known locally, and that she had trotted a race and won at a State

fair, in very fast time for that day. She had been brought from Ohio by

some sheep-dealers, who were able to give her exact age, and it was thus

found that she was older than her reputed sire. Several expert horsemen,

from a picture secured by Mr. Shipman on his trip, have not hesitated to

give it as a strong conviction that she belonged to the Cadmus family,

in Southern Ohio. In the last two or three years a correspondent of the

Chicago _Horse Review_ brings out some local facts that make it almost

morally certain that she was bred by Goldsmith Coffein, of Red Lion,

Ohio, and that she was got by Iron’s Cadmus, the sire of the great

Pocahontas. The final nail has not been clinched in establishing this

pedigree, and probably never will be, but the circumstances are so fully

detailed as to scarcely leave room for a doubt that she was a half-sister

to the famous Pocahontas.

From what has here been said about the methods of Mr. Backman, the

leading breeder of that period, in the North, it should not be inferred

that all Northern breeders were like him. The first real battle I ever

had against fraudulent pedigrees originated in Orange County, New York,

with the notorious Captain Rynders, in which the pedigree of the once

famous Widow Machree, the dam of Aberdeen, was involved. The pedigree of

this mare had been registered as obtained from Mr. James W. Hoyt, who

once owned her, and her dam was given as by Durland’s Messenger Duroc.

When Aberdeen came before the public for patronage, his owner, Rynders,

advertised him as out of Widow Machree and she out of a mare by Abdallah.

This was challenged as untrue by Mr. Guy Miller and Mr. Joseph Gavin, of

Orange County, and I was called upon to demand the evidence upon which

the change had been made from Messenger Duroc to Abdallah. As a matter

of course “the fat was in the fire” at once, and out came Rynders with

a terrific explosion of anger, abounding in threats and denunciations

against anybody and everybody who attempted to interfere with his

“business.” The good names of Guy Miller and Joseph Gavin carried too

much weight as against that of Isaiah Rynders, and, as his last card, he

brought out a duly and formally executed affidavit, sworn to by a man

whose name I will not here mention, stating that he bred the Abdallah

mare; all of which was the very rankest perjury, which was so easily

exposed that it did Rynders far more harm than good. At last the whole

truth came out in a form that was complete and conclusive, showing that

the mare in question was bred by Garrett Duryea, of Bethel, Sullivan

County, New York, and was got by a horse known as Pintler’s Bolivar.

Rynders had been a leader in New York politics so long that he knew just

how to manage things where the truth must be suppressed. He was a liberal

advertiser, the two sporting papers were needy for patronage in that

line, and their columns were closed to any and all communications against

his side of the question. But all this failed to suppress the truth and

uphold a fraud, and I doubt whether there is a man living to-day who does

not believe that the fight was fairly and honestly won. This contest

taught me a very important lesson, and that was, that if I expected

to fight bogus pedigrees I must have a channel of communication of my

own. Hence _Wallace’s Monthly_, which, in its day, was not only able to

expose bogus pedigrees, but lead intelligent thought and experience on

all breeding subjects, till it fell into the hands of an unscrupulous

neocracy, where it soon died for want of brains.

Having given a very brief illustration of the methods which governed Mr.

Backman in ascertaining and determining the blood elements which entered

into the foundation of his great breeding establishment, and the care and

promptness with which errors were eliminated, it is now in order to take

a glance at the methods pursued at the great Woodburn Farm, founded by

R. A. Alexander in Kentucky. These were the two earliest establishments,

of any prominence, for breeding the trotter, in the whole country. The

one was the northern center of the interest and the other the southern,

and they together may be considered as representative of both sections.

Mr. Alexander, I think, was reared and educated in Scotland, and there

inherited a large estate. Upon coming into this inheritance he determined

to transfer his interests to Kentucky, where he bought up a cluster

of farms and shaped them for the purpose of building up a mammoth

establishment for the breeding of all varieties of domestic animals of

the highest type and excellence. I think his fancy ran more to Short Horn

cattle than to any other line of breeding, probably because he knew more

about the value and merit of the different tribes of that breed than he

did of any other variety. The founding of an establishment so immense,

and for the grand purpose of the breeding and improving the varieties

of domestic animals, was the agricultural sensation of the period, and

everybody, from one end of the land to the other, soon knew of and

applauded the great enterprise. There had been great enterprises on

similar lines before, and there have been even greater ones since, but

Mr. Alexander’s Woodburn Farm, of Kentucky, may always be looked upon as

the real pioneer in stock breeding on a large and methodical scale, and

without limit as to resources. A university education in Scotland, with

all its training in the refinements of logical distinctions, did not

bring to Mr. Alexander a knowledge of the pedigrees of Kentucky horses,

nor did it train him in the detection of the tricks of Kentucky horse

dealers, and thus as a purchaser of his breeding stock he was looked upon

by the “sharps” as a fat goose, ready to be plucked. After these “sharps”

had secured their pluckings, Mr. Alexander called in a professional

pedigreeist to put the lines of the blood he had purchased in order and

print a catalogue. This “professional” was not a pedigree _tracer_,

for he never traced anything in his life, but a pedigree _maker_, and

wherever he thought that anything was needed he added it, whether true or

not, and it went to the world in that form. This is more conspicuously

true in the department of trotting pedigrees, as will appear below.

Thus the acts of an incapable and dishonest employee were given the

indorsement of an honorable and eminent name; falsehoods were made to

appear as truths; counterfeits were put in circulation that are still

circulating as genuine coin, with many people. Under the circumstances,

Mr. Alexander could hardly be blamed, for, knowing nothing of such

matters of his own knowledge, he employed what he supposed was the best

authority then to be found. For my own part, when I came to register the

Woodburn stock, I was ready to accept as true whatever I found in the

catalogue, believing that Mr. Alexander was incapable of publishing to

the world a misrepresentation. In this estimate of his character I was

right, and I have never changed my opinion on that point, but when I came

to examine the structure of his catalogue I found there was rotten wood

all through it. A few examples that have been carefully investigated will

serve to show the value of the work done by the “pedigree maker” for Mr.

Alexander.

Pilot Jr. was a gray horse, foaled 1844, was got by Old Pacing Pilot and

attained the distinction of being the head of a well-known family of

trotters. He was foaled 1844, bred by Angereau Gray, and owned a number

of years by Glasgow & Heinsohn, of Louisville, Kentucky. He was kept

a number of years about Lexington, Kentucky, by Dr. Herr, Mr. Bradley,

and perhaps others, and always advertised as “by Pilot (the pacer), dam

Nancy Pope, grandam Nancy Taylor.” Nobody then ever pretended to know

what horse was the sire of either Nancy Pope or Nancy Taylor. He was

then owned by the parties who afterward sold him to Mr. Alexander, and

it is evident they did not then know anything about the sires of these

mares. Mr. Alexander bought him in 1858, and immediately his “pedigree

maker” furnished the sires of these two mares; Nancy Pope was given as

by Havoc, son of Sir Charles, and Nancy Taylor as by imported Alfred.

The controversy about this pedigree was long and sharp, the one side,

headed by the modern management at Woodburn, as usual laboring to sustain

the infallibility of the Woodburn catalogues, and the other to reach the

exact truth, whatever it might be. The Board of Censors of the National

Breeders’ Association sent out a call for information on certain abstract

points and finally reached a decision as follows: (1) That Havoc, the

reputed sire of Nancy Pope, the dam of Pilot Jr., died in 1828. (2) That

Nancy Pope was not foaled till 1832. (3) That the breeding of Nancy

Taylor, the dam of Nancy Pope, was unknown. These dates were fixed by

undoubted evidence, and, as afterward developed, another might have

been added with equal authenticity. Imported Alfred, the reputed sire

of Nancy Taylor, was not imported till several years after Nancy Taylor

was foaled, and thus it was clearly shown by the absolutely insuperable

difficulties of dates that both the sires inserted in the pedigree were

nothing more than very stupid fictions.

Edwin Forrest seems to have held second place in the list of stallions

in the Woodburn Stud at that period, and the remote extensions of his

pedigree were also fictitious. His grandam was represented to be by

Duroc, the famous son of imported Diomed, and his great-grandam by

imported Messenger. The first two crosses were technically inaccurately

stated, but the second two, as given here, were purely fictitious.

Norman, the third stallion in the catalogue, had his sire correctly given

as the Morse Horse, but his dam was given as by Jersey Highlander and

his grandam as by Bishop’s Hambletonian, son of Messenger, both of which

were wholly fictitious. His dam was by a horse called Magnum Bonum, a

representative of a family of that name, and that is all that is known

of his pedigree. A full showing of this pedigree will be found in the

“Trotting Register,” Vol. III.

Bay Chief was a bay son of Mambrino Chief, with a bald face, and was

often called Bald Chief. He was the sensational trotter of the whole

Mambrino Chief family, and I believe it is true that when four years old

he showed a half-mile on Mr. Alexander’s track in 1:08 and repeated in

1:08½. In the catalogue he is given as foaled in 1859, got by Mambrino

Chief, dam by Keokuk, son of imported Truffle; grandam a thoroughbred

mare by Stamboul Arabian. As this was found in Mr. Alexander’s catalogue

I took it for granted it must be true, but I never had heard of a

running horse called Keokuk before, and I kept hunting for ever so many

years without finding hide nor hair of him, until 1885, when the whole

mystery was developed. Mr. Richard Johnson, of Scott County, Kentucky,

had business interests in Keokuk, Iowa, in the early fifties, probably

locating land warrants, and he bought a pair of mares in Keokuk to travel

over the prairies, and when he was through with his work he brought the

team home with him to Scott County. He knew nothing whatever of the

breeding of those mares, but they were a good pair of drivers and one of

them was quite a smart roadster that he called “Old Keokuk.” He bred this

mare, Keokuk, in 1858 to Mambrino Chief, and in 1859 she produced the

colt called Bay Chief. In 1862 he was bred to some sixteen or eighteen

mares, and the fall of that year Mr. Alexander bought the colt at public

auction, paying one thousand dollars for him. He was taken to Woodburn,

put in training and never covered any more mares. In the spring of

1865 he was killed in a raid of Southern troops upon the horse stock

at Woodburn. (For further particulars of this little sketch the reader

is referred to _Wallace’s Monthly_ for 1885, page 285.) To fix up a

pedigree for the maternal side of this colt was no easy matter, but Mr.

Alexander’s “pedigree maker” proved himself fully equal to the occasion.

There was the nasty name Keokuk fastened to the old mare, and it would

stick as tight as wax to the end of her days, coming from a region where

there was no drop of running blood; so he made a “thoroughbred” horse,

right on the spot, and gave him the name of Keokuk, which would account

for the name of the mare, and pronounced him a son of imported Truffle.

To supply a “thoroughbred” grandam was comparatively easy, for Mr.

Johnson had long been a resident of Scott County, and the horse Stamboul

had been kept in that county, hence there could be no doubt that she

was a “thoroughbred” daughter of that horse. With this review of the

misfortunes of Mr. Alexander in placing the arrangement and, I might say,

care of his pedigrees, in dishonest hands, we will pass whatever may

remain of his early stallions, and take a glance at some of the pedigrees

of his brood mares.

Black Rose proved to be one of the best brood mares ever owned at

Woodburn. I am told she was a pacer, and certainly all that is known of

her blood was pacing blood. She was sought after and procured by Mr.

Alexander because she had produced several trotters, and it can be read

all through his purchases for the trotting stud, that he had undoubting

confidence in the theory that trotters must come from trotters. When this

mare first appeared in the Woodburn catalogue no dam was given to her,

but meantime the “pedigree maker” had come around, and the next year she

was fitted out with the following, in fine style.

“Black Rose, bl. m., foaled about 1847; got by Tom Teemer; dam

by Cannon’s Whip; g. d. by Robin Gray, son of imp. Royalist.”

The pedigree stood in this form a number of years, and probably would

still be so standing had it not been that in trying to learn something

more about the sire, Tom Teemer, I received some intimations that made

me doubtful about the maternal side. On a certain occasion I asked Mr.

R. S. Veech, of Kentucky, what he knew about it, and he replied that

he had made a trip to Clark County for no other purpose than to trace

and investigate the pedigree of Black Rose, and he was not able to get

a single syllable of information about her dam, any more than if she

never had a dam. Some time afterward I wrote to Mr. Brodhead, manager

at Woodburn, inquiring where the pedigree of Black Rose as given and

perpetuated in the Woodburn catalogues came from and on what basis it

rested. He replied promptly and briefly that Mr. Veech had made a trip

to Clark County in search of this pedigree and the result of that search

was what appeared in the catalogue. These are the facts, substantially,

as given me by these two gentlemen, and this is the first time I have

ever given them to the public. I have known Mr. Veech intimately and

trustingly for twenty-eight years and I know him to be eminently

truthful. I have not known Mr. Brodhead so long, and if he had not

published the fraudulent extension of this pedigree in his catalogues

every year for more than ten years, before Mr. Veech made his trip to

Clark County, I might at least express my sympathy with him in having so

bad a memory. Mr. Brodhead had nothing to do with either the original

construction or utterance of this fraud, for he was not then connected

with the management of Woodburn. My readers can employ their own terms

in characterizing, as it deserves, the fraudulent act of manufacturing a

pedigree out of whole cloth; and they can also exercise their own ethical

discrimination in determining whether the man who executes the fraud is

any worse than the man who maintains and supports it after he knows it is

fraudulent.

We pass on to Sally Russell, the grandam of Maud S. It is not a pleasant

task to review an old controversy, whatever it might bring to light;

but a controversy which involves the true lines of descent of so great

a family as that of Maud S., Nutwood, Lord Russell, etc., is worth

preserving for the enlightenment of future generations. It all turns

upon the breeding of Sally Russell and the identity of her breeder. She

was a little chestnut mare, represented to have been foaled 1850, got

by Boston and out of Maria Russell, by Rattler, and so on, claimed to

be thoroughbred. She was bought by Mr. Alexander from the foreman on

Captain John W. Russell’s farm, with the pedigree given as above. The

name of her breeder was not given to Mr. Alexander, I think, but Bruce

has it that her dam, Maria Russell, and this mare Sally Russell were both

bred by Benjamin Luckett. In 1863 this mare was offered, with others, to

the highest bidder, at Mr. Alexander’s annual sale, being then thirteen

years, old according to the records of the establishment, and the

auctioneer was not able to coax a bid of ten dollars on her and she was

led out unsold. Five years later—1868—I attended the Woodburn sale, and

a little scrubby-looking old mare was brought into the ring, represented

to have been stinted to imported Australian, and when this was announced

a subdued whisper went round the ring, “She’ll never raise another foal.”

The auctioneer was eloquent upon the value of the Australian blood on

the Boston blood, and the possibilities of the coming foal, but all to

no purpose, as the mare was led out of the ring the second time, with

no person willing to bid a dollar. I was astonished that such an animal

should have been put up at auction, for she had all the appearance of

being twenty-eight instead of eighteen. She died that summer, apparently

of old age, and I have no shadow of doubt that she sank under the weight

of years. On two separate occasions great crowds of practical horsemen

had, in this manner, proclaimed that Mr. Alexander had been victimized in

the age of the mare, and fifteen years later I determined to settle the

question as to whether this judgment was right.

As the supposed age and breeding of Sally Russell has been made to turn

and rest upon the ownership of her dam, Maria Russell, it is important

that we should have the antecedent circumstances set out in the plainest

possible manner. Captain John A. Holton and Captain John W. Russell

were farmers in Kentucky, living a few miles apart, and I think they

were both river men at one time or another; certainly Russell was in

command of a snag boat on the Ohio and Mississippi along about 1836-40.

Like many other Kentucky farmers, they both bred a few running horses,

but not enough, singly, to justify the expense of separate training

establishments, so they united their strings in one stable, sharing the

expense and dividing the profits, if any, equally. The partnership did

not extend to the joint ownership of any of the horses, but simply to the

losses or profits of training and racing, and Major Benjamin Luckett was

in their employ as trainer.

Before going to work in earnest on this investigation, I learned that

Mr. Llewellyn Holton, a son of Captain John A. Holton, still resided on

the old farm and that he was old enough to know all about the origin and

history of Maria Russell, as well as the other stock belonging to his

father at that time. This was very encouraging, but I wanted to know

whether he was a man who could be relied upon to tell the truth. On

this point I addressed an inquiry to the late Colonel R. P. Pepper, and

his reply is as follows: “Your letter of the 29th received. I regard L.

Holton, of this county, as a man of honor, integrity and intelligence,

and the peer of any gentleman of my acquaintance. In my opinion any

statement he will make upon any subject, as to his own knowledge, will

be accepted in this community as readily as that of any gentleman in it.

He is a man who sometimes gets on sprees from intoxicating liquors, but

I have never heard of it affecting his intelligence, honor or integrity,

and, as above stated, his word will be accepted in this community at this

time as soon as the word of any gentleman in this county or community.”

With this very high indorsement I did not hesitate to send a commissioner

to interview Mr. Holton and get from him the exact facts in the case,

without any leading questions and without any shading of the truth or

bias on either side. What this commissioner learned will be given further

on.

Let us now turn to the other side and see how Mr. Brodhead manages to get

Maria Russell into the ownership of Captain John W. Russell. Under date

of April 30, 1883, he wrote to the _Turf, Field and Farm_ as follows:

“A Colonel Shepherd, of the South—New Orleans, I think—gave

or sold to Captain J. W. Russell and Captain J. A. Holton a

Stockholder mare, out of Miranda, by Topgallant, etc. This mare

was called Miss Shepherd. They owned and bred this mare in

partnership. Among the produce thus owned were Maria Russell

by Rattler, Mary Bell by Sea Gull, and Swiss Boy by imported

Swiss. Captain Russell sold his half of Swiss Boy to Mr.

Taylor, son-in-law of Ben Luckett, for $750. Maria Russell was

owned and run as a partnership mare by Holton and Russell, but

was trained by Major Ben Luckett.”

Then follows a lot of stuff, without any relevancy whatever, going

to show that Ben Luckett trained her at three years old, but had no

connection whatever with the family, all of which is known to everybody,

and then he again asserts that “in the division of the partnership

property, Maria Russell fell to Captain Russell.” The next dash that

Mr. Brodhead makes is for a negro seventy-five years old, who had been

in the Russell family from his birth, named Jesse Dillon. Jesse was no

exception to his race, or indeed to many of the white race, for whenever

any information is wanted from them they are always ready to give it, as

they expect at least one half-dollar, and if they tell the story “right

up to what is wanted” they expect two. Jesse was sharp enough to discover

just what his interviewers were after, and he was ready to supply “the

long-felt want.” Jesse was able to tell just how the mare got her eye

knocked out and just how he took her to Blackburn’s and had her bred

to Boston. In all this, including the loss of the eye and the trip to

Blackburn’s, Jesse may have had in his mind Captain Russell’s one-eyed

mare, Mary Churchill, while his interviewers were thinking about Maria

Russell. It is no uncommon thing for white people as well as black, at

seventy-five, to get names of forty or fifty years past confused.

This is all of Mr. Brodhead’s case so far as what he presents has any

relevancy to the point at issue, namely, the identity and ownership

of the mare Maria Russell. The pedigree was not made at Woodburn; Mr.

Alexander in this case as in many others was simply the victim of the

sharper. The only shadow of evidence that has been presented that the

pedigree might be true is the evidence of a superannuated negro, Jesse

Dillon. For the Woodburn side of the case the reader is referred to

_Wallace’s Monthly_ for June, 1883, page 366. In replying to this case I

will try to summarize the different considerations as briefly as possible.

_First._ The case is opened with the assumption that Colonel Shepherd

presented the mare Miss Shepherd, by Stockholder, to Captain J. W.

Russell and Captain J. A. Holton. We might laugh at this by asking

which half he gave to Russell and which half to Holton? This is

merely constructing a theory by which the ownership of Russell might

be maintained. It is safe to say the mare was given to Holton and to

Holton alone, and here is the proof of it. There is a silver cup, now in

possession of Mr. Bowen, grandson of J. A. Holton, with this inscription:

“J. A. Holton, awarded by Franklyn Agricultural Society, 1836, for filly

Maria Russell.” Where is Captain J. W. Russell’s ownership at that date?

_Second._ When S. D. Bruce was compiling his Stud Book, Captain John W.

Russell had his thoroughbred stock entered there. There were several

brood mares with their produce under them, but where were Maria Russell

and her daughter Sally Russell? They appear as the property of Ben

Luckett, when everybody knows he had nothing to do with them. As Captain

Russell did not have them entered when he was entering his other stock, I

must take it as _prima facie_ evidence that he did not own them at that

time.

_Third._ It is now in imperishable evidence that John W. Russell did

not own Maria Russell in 1836, and that he did not own her at the time

Bruce was compiling his Stud Book, and now the question is, was there

ever a time when he did own her? To answer this question we must turn to

Llewellyn Holton, the only man then living who knew and had a right to

know all about the history of this mare. His statement is as follows:

“FORKS OF ELKHORN. May 24, 1883.

“This is to certify that my father, Captain John A. Holton,

was, for a number of years, interested with Captain John W.

Russell in a number of thoroughbreds, and they raced them in

partnership. When they dissolved and divided the stock, I am

positively certain that my father retained all the descendants

of the Stockholder mare—among them Maria Russell, and all

her produce—and I know to my certain knowledge that Captain

Russell never owned or had in his possession the mare Maria

Russell, or any of her produce; and I further know to my

certain knowledge that said mare, Maria Russell, had two good

eyes from the time of her foaling until the day of her death.

If my father bred a mare to Boston in 1848, I incline to the

opinion that it was a bay mare called Limber, for the reason

that she, Limber, was very uncertain, having missed several

seasons. There is one point, however, that I feel very certain

upon, and that is that neither my father nor Captain Russell,

during their racing or breeding career, ever owned a Boston

filly. As Boston was the most famous horse of his time, it is

not at all possible that there could have been a Boston colt

or filly on my father’s farm and I not knowing of the fact. I

was born in the old homestead the 15th of November, 1820, and

have resided either there or adjoining all my life; therefore I

had constant opportunity to know all about my father’s stock of

horses.

L. HOLTON.

“I hereby attest that the above is my father’s signature.—J. A.

HOLTON, son of Llewellyn Holton.”

_Fourth._ With the foregoing clear and decisive statement before us, it

is not necessary to determine whether the partnership between Holton and

Russell embraced the joint ownership of the racing stock or whether the

running colts of the two farms were brought together from year to year,

and as a matter of economy and profit, trained and raced as one stable.

This latter view of the question seems to be made plain. In his interview

with Mr. Holton my commissioner reported as follows: “The horses were

always trained by Captain Holton at his private track at the Forks of

Elkhorn. That he, Llewellyn Holton, always went after the colts that

were on the Russell farm when the training season commenced, and at the

close of the racing campaign of the year he always took those back that

came from the Russell stock, while those from Captain Holton’s stock were

kept on the home farm. When the partnership between Captain Holton and

Captain Russell was dissolved, Mr. Llewellyn Holton is positively certain

that Captain Russell retained his own stock and Captain Holton his own,

the latter consisting of the produce of the Stockholder mare, among them

Maria Russell, and all her produce. And he is still more positively

certain that neither the mare, Maria Russell, nor any of her produce was

ever in the hands of Captain Russell.” At the close of each season the

owners, respectively, took their own stock home till the next spring, and

after a series of years each owner took his own stock home, and that was

the end of the arrangement.

_Fifth._ In the summer of 1883 I met Mr. John W. Russell, son of Captain

Russell, at the house of Mr. R. S. Veech, near Louisville, Kentucky,

and we had some conversation on the question of the pedigree of Sally

Russell, which had then been in hot controversy for some months. The

subject was not a pleasant one to him and he either parried or negatived

the few questions I asked. A year or two after this I met him at the

Galt House in Louisville, and we had a very pleasant conversation. The

controversy about Sally Russell had then subsided, and I asked him if

he remembered his father’s thoroughbred mare Mary Churchill. “Oh, yes,”

he said, “she was the first horse I ever rode, and my folks were very

much afraid I would fall off and get hurt.” I then asked him if Mary

Churchill was blind of one eye, and he answered he “could not remember.”

My next question was, whether he recollected anything about Maria

Russell, and his reply was: “Nothing that is definite.” Then followed

the inquiry, “whether there were any traditions in the household going

to show that his father ever owned Maria Russell,” and he replied:

“There are no traditions that are reliable.” These replies were a most

grateful surprise to me, and if I have not given the precise words used I

certainly have given the precise meaning.

_Sixth._ Llewellyn Holton was sixty-three years old in 1883 and he was

afflicted with physical paralysis, but his mind seems to have been

perfectly sound and memory good for a man of his age. Before he had the

slightest intimation that a pedigree was being investigated that might

call him into controversy, he was asked about Maria Russell by one of the

most prominent and distinguished of all the breeders of Kentucky, and

that breeder wrote me as follows:

“I have seen Mr. L. Holton, the son of Captain John A.

Holton, of this county, and he says his father bred and owned

Maria Russell; that she was by Rattler, and out of a mare by

Stockholder, and was foaled 1834. He says he thinks a man by

the name of William Duvall can give some information about

these mares. I will see him to-morrow, and write you.”

As this information about Maria Russell was elicited from Mr. Holton

on the spur of the moment, and as he gave her pedigree correctly, and

not only this, but gave the year in which she was foaled correctly, his

memory, at least so far as this mare is concerned seems to have been

remarkably good.

_Seventh._ My correspondent wrote a few days later: “I have just

learned from William Duvall, who trained for Captain J. A. Holton in

1842, that he remembers the mare Maria Russell, and he thinks she was

by Seagull, and out of Limber, by Whipster; he also remembers a mare

owned by Holton that was by Rattler, but cannot remember any more about

her.” This confirms Mr. Holton’s recollections in a very striking and

satisfactory manner. As a trainer Mr. Duvall did not handle the brood

mares, but only their produce. He recalled a Seagull mare and a Rattler

mare, that Captain Holton owned, but he attached the name “Maria Russell”

to the wrong one. This kind of impromptu inaccuracy is almost always an

element of strength, for it goes to prove that the witness has not been

“coached.” He remembered there was a mare by Rattler in the field, and

as there was no other Rattler mare owned by either Holton or Russell,

the identity of Maria Russell is clearly established as the property of

Captain Holton in 1842.

_Eighth._ With the high indorsement of Mr. Llewellyn Holton as a man of

truth and honor, given on page 421 of this chapter; and with the evidence

before me of his clear and unclouded memory in giving correctly not only

the pedigrees but the year in which Maria Russell was foaled, and all

this before there was any pressure or suspicion on his part as to where

his disclosure might lead, I cannot, as an honest man, fail to believe

that he told the truth. Thus, after leaving out all the minor evidences,

we have the three major points fully and clearly established, namely, (1)

the inscription on the silver cup that Captain Holton owned her in 1836;

(2) the evidence of William Duvall that he owned her in 1842; and (3) the

statement of Llewellyn Holton that he owned her always and that she died

his.

_Ninth._ At the Woodburn sale of 1863 and 1868 there were certainly at

least two hundred experienced horsemen and breeders present who were able

to discriminate concerning a mare represented to be thirteen years old

when she looked ten years more; or concerning a mare represented to be

eighteen years old when she looked as if she were twenty-eight. Hence,

no man was willing to bid five dollars on her. This I take it, was the

personal judgment of every man who thought anything about it, and when

she died a few weeks after the last sale, nobody could doubt that she

died of old age, and nobody could doubt that Mr. Alexander represented

her to the public just as she had been represented to him, both in age

and breeding, by the rogue who victimized him.

The mare Sally Russell, the grandam of Maud S., had been sold to Mr.

Alexander by the foreman of Captain Russell’s farm, and it does not

appear that he represented her as having been bred by Captain Russell.

Indeed, it was not claimed at Woodburn that Captain Russell bred her

until a representative of that establishment called at my office to

examine the service books of Boston and there found that “John Russell’s

one-eyed mare” had been bred in 1849. If a fraud, therefore, was

established the Russell family must bear the odium. Hence all evidence

from that source must be considered in the light of the fact that

every member of the family is deeply interested. But notwithstanding

the efforts of the Russell family to preserve the father’s name from

obloquy, and notwithstanding the trip in search of some superannuated

darkey who could remember anything and everything in consideration of

the _pour-boire_ that would be forthcoming, there stood that terrible

statement of Llewellyn Holton that could not be met by evidence. The

whole matter was against him, and Mr. Brodhead was not happy. He knew

he could not prove him wrong, and the only course left open was to get

him to take back certain things that he had said on the ground that his

memory had failed and that the fight was between “Old Kaintuck” and

outside parties who had no business to interfere with Kentucky affairs.

On an appointed day, therefore, all who were supposed to have any

influence with Mr. Holton, in the whole countryside, met Mr. Brodhead,

and they came down on “the poor old paralytic” hammer and tongs. They

asked him what he remembered about all the horses, each in his turn, in

the whole neighborhood, whether he had ever heard of them before or not.

This was kept up a long time, but they could not prevail on him to take

back a single specific statement he had made. He had said Captain Russell

had never owned Maria Russell or any of her produce, and he would not

take it back. He had said Maria Russell had two good eyes when she died,

and he would not take it back. At last when the poor old invalid was

worn out they sprung the patriotic dodge of “Kentucky against the world”

upon him and this had some effect, but not enough to save the anxious

“bulldozers” from a feeling of great depression. At last Mr. Brodhead

seized a pen and indited a letter for him to sign, addressed to me,

with the request that I would publish it. I am not able to say how many

attempts were made to get such a letter as he would be willing to sign,

but several different drafts were made, and sick and worried, and in

order to get rid of his tormentors, he signed, and the letter came to me,

and I published it as follows:

“FORKS OF ELKHORN, June 12, 1883.

“Mr. J. H. WALLACE.

“DEAR SIR: In answer to your letter to my son, of May 21, 1883,

there are three points suggested. First, in regard to her

produce (Maria Russell’s). I have no recollection any further.

I have no data from which I could find out concerning them.

Second, I have no remembrance of her death nor the manner of

it. Now, in regard to the statement I made to Mr. John K.

Stringfield. I think he has made it too strong, for I told him

my statement was from memory only, and that I could not nor

would not swear to it. Since that time I have had sufficient

proof to overbalance my memory, and circumstances called to

mind that have convinced me I was in error. I simply stated

what I believed to be true at that time. I have no interest in

the matter whatever—only want to be understood. I trust that

you will oblige me by publishing the above letter.

Yours truly,

“L. HOLTON.”

It must have been a most pitiful sight to see six or eight able-bodied

men, headed by the stalwart Brodhead, acting as chief inquisitor,

circling round the reclining form of a poor old invalid, trying to

convince him that he had no memory and that he was a liar, prodding

him with questions about horses that he never had heard of, and when

he failed to tell them, torturing him with remarks that if he couldn’t

answer that question how could he know so well about Maria Russell? But

with all their tortures they couldn’t force him to say his father did not

own Maria Russell all her life and that she did not die with two good

eyes. It was simply a little Spanish Inquisition on the waters of the

Elkhorn from which came the cry, “Recant, Recant,” dinged into the ears

of the helpless paralytic. Still, helpless as he was against so many, he

obeyed his conscience and maintained his integrity, notwithstanding all

the satanic arts of Torquemada. When all else had failed the war-cry was

shouted in his ear: “New York is trying to destroy the breeding interests

of Kentucky, and all true Kentuckians must stand by each other or we all

go under.” The old man brightened up and said: “I’m a Kentuckian, but you

mustn’t try to make me a self-convicted liar.” The piece of patchwork

given above, in the shape of a letter, was then shaped up by his

tormentors, for the old man was not able to write a line, and dispatched

to the office of _Wallace’s Monthly_, where it was printed just as it was

received. Each one of the tormentors made a copy of it, and no one of

them was satisfied with it; even the inquisitor-general said it fell far

short of what they wanted, but that by industriously speaking of it as a

recantation, the public would soon come to treat it as a recantation.

When, after years of fruitless effort, Mr. Brodhead, manager at Woodburn

Farm, got control of registration, he made an early move to have the

cloud removed from the pedigree of the stallion Lord Russell, and brought

the matter before the neocracy of his own creation, of which he was

himself the head and brains, and the action thereon was published in

_Wallace’s Monthly_ for February, 1893. The presentation is imposing

in length and abounds in many things that have no possible bearing on

the question at issue. Unfortunately I have no means of determining the

extent to which the crime of the interpolation or excision has been made

manifest except in two of the exhibits which I will give. In Exhibit

1 (Holton’s letter above) the following words are interpolated: “and

in justice to all I correct my statement.” These words are not very

important to the meaning, but they are very important as indicating

the accuracy, and hence reliability, of a witness. In the same exhibit

Mr. Brodhead says: “I insist that you will oblige me,” etc., while the

original uses the word “trust” instead of “insist.” Again, Mr. Brodhead

has his letter dated June 11, 1893, instead of June 12, 1883, as it is

in the original. The variation of the dates here seems to have had a

purpose, whatever it may have been. This letter must have been a great

trouble, for I have seen three or four copies of it, so called, and no

two of them alike.

I was duly notified that the question of Sally Russell’s pedigree would

be brought up at that meeting, and requested to be there to sustain my

view of that question. The court and the jury were made up of Brodhead’s

creatures, and organized simply to register his edicts. The wise man

said, “Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.” The

bird looked on, from a safe distance, and saw the fowler impaled in his

own snare, by his own act, and his true character revealed to the world.

It is very difficult to understand just why it should have been deemed

necessary to cut out the very pith and heart of Mr. Holton’s letter, when

he knew that it would make no difference with his court whether there was

any evidence at all. Under the law of retribution, a man’s character may

be determined by his own acts.

HOLTON’S TRUE STATEMENT.

“FORKS OF ELKHORN, May 24, 1883.

“This is to certify that my father, Captain John A. Holton, was for a

number of years interested with Captain John Russell in a number of

thoroughbreds, and they raced them in partnership. When they dissolved

and divided the stock, I am positively certain that my father retained

all the descendants of the Stockholder mare—among them Maria Russell

and all of her produce AND I KNOW TO MY CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT CAPTAIN

RUSSELL NEVER OWNED OR HAD IN HIS POSSESSION THE MARE MARIA RUSSELL,

OR ANY OF HER PRODUCE. And I further know to my certain knowledge that

said mare, Maria Russell, had two good eyes from the time of her foaling

until the day of her death. If my father bred a mare to Boston in 1848, I

incline to the opinion that it was a bay mare we owned called Limber, for

the reason that she, Limber, was very uncertain, having missed several

seasons. There is one point, however, that I feel very certain upon, and

that is, that neither my father nor Captain Russell, during their racing

or breeding career, ever owned a Boston filly. As Boston was the most

famous horse of his time, it is not at all possible that there could

have been a Boston colt or filly on my father’s farm and I not knowing

of the fact. I was born in the old homestead the 15th of November, 1820,

and have resided either there or adjoining all my life; therefore I had

constant opportunity to know all about my father’s stock of horses.

L. HOLTON.

“I hereby attest that the above is my father’s signature.—J. A. HOLTON,

son of Llewellyn Holton.”

BRODHEAD’S REPRESENTATION OF IT.

“FORKS, ELKHORN, May 24, 1883.

“This is to certify that my father, Captain John A. Holton, was for a

number of years interested with Captain John Russell in a number of

thoroughbreds, and they raced them in partnership. When they dissolved,

and divided the stock, I am positively certain that my father retained

all the descendants of the Stockholder mare, among them Maria Russell

and all her produce, and I know to my certain knowledge that said Maria

Russell had two good eyes from the time of her foaling until the day of

her death. If my father bred a mare to Boston in 1848, I incline to the

opinion that it was a bay mare he owned called Limber, for the reason

that she, Limber, was very uncertain, having missed several seasons.

There is one point, however, that I feel very certain upon, and that

is that neither my father nor Captain Russell during their racing or

breeding career ever owned a Boston filly. As Boston was the most famous

horse of his time, it is not at all possible that there could have been a

Boston colt or filly on my father’s farm and I not knowing of the fact.

I was born in the old homestead the 15th of November, 1820, and have

resided either there or adjoining all my life; therefore I had constant

opportunity to know all about my father’s stock of horses.

L. HOLTON.

“I hereby attest that the above is my father’s signature.—J. A. HOLTON,

son of L. Holton.”

The deadly parallel columns tell the whole story. The central and most

important fact in Mr. Holton’s statement has been deliberately and

carefully cut out by Mr. Brodhead, and the evidence that he did so cannot

be wiped out either by money or by the torture of invalids. The testimony

of cold type remains forever. Has Mr. Brodhead, it is asked, professed to

have given the whole of Mr. Holton’s statement, and suppressed a vital

part of it? He has given every word and letter of the statement, from

the date line to the signature, except the one sentence that is the life

and soul of the whole statement, and that sentence I have printed above

in capital letters, so that it may be easily distinguished and compared.

For years I have known that Mr. Brodhead possessed most remarkable visual

powers. When he wanted to see a thing he could see it through a stone

wall and without any assistance from the “X-rays,” and when he didn’t

want to see a thing he couldn’t see it even when held up to his very

nose under an arc light. The deception practiced here might justly be

designated by a harder name, for it was deliberately planned and carried

out in order to gain an end by suppressing the truth. Why did he not

free himself from his marvelous powers of vision, and looking out of the

natural eyes of his mind, see the imminent danger of a terrible exposure?

In keeping back part of the truth with the pretension that he had given

it all, how could he avoid recalling the fate of Annanias and Sapphira

for keeping back part of the price with the pretension that they had

given it all?

As an exercise in ethical athletics I will submit the following abstract

question to the debating clubs, especially in Kentucky, viz., “Is the man

who suppresses the truth in order to sustain a fraudulent pedigree any

more worthy of belief than the man who made the pedigree and sold the

horse upon it?”

CHAPTER XXX.

INVESTIGATION OF DISPUTED PEDIGREES.—(_Continued_.)

How Belle of Wabash got her pedigree—Specimen of pedigree

making in that day and locality—Search for the dam of Thomas

Jefferson—True origin and history of Belle of Wabash—Facts

about the old-time gelding Prince—The truth about Waxy, the

grandam of Sunol—Remarkable attempts to make a pedigree out

of nothing—How “Jim” Eoff worked a “tenderfoot”—Pedigree of

American Eclipse—Pedigree of Boston—Tom Bowling and Aaron

Pennington—Chenery’s Gray Eagle—Pedigree of George Wilkes in

doubt.

At Louisville, Kentucky, October, 1860, a ten-mile race was trotted which

excited a good deal of local interest and comment. The contestants in

this race were entered as follows:

“Captain Magowan, by imp. Sovereign, dam by American Eclipse.”

“Gipsy Queen, by Wagner, dam by imp. Glencoe.”

“Belle of Wabash (Indiana Belle), by Bassinger, dam by imp. William.”

The names of the parties making the entries are given in the entries of

the first and second, and the Louisville _Journal_ of the week before

remarks that “J. J. Alexander will represent his State honorably with the

Belle of Indiana.” Captain Magowan held the lead from start to finish,

and at the end of the eighth mile, some say the seventh, Belle of Wabash

was drawn. It will be observed that, so far as given, each one of these

animals was furnished with a first-class race-horse pedigree; for it

was then held as firmly as any religious tenet that no horse could go

that distance at any gait unless he was strictly thoroughbred, and, in

Kentucky, if he did not have such a pedigree they gave him one on the

spot. At that time they never bothered their heads hunting up the breeder

of an animal to learn how it was bred. They simply wanted to see the

performance and then make the pedigree to suit it. These three pedigrees

were all bogus in all their elements, and I knew so little of the ways

of the horse world, at that time, that I accepted and recorded them as

genuine.

Captain Magowan was a roan gelding, willful and bad tempered, and all

that seems to be known about his origin is the conceded fact that he was

bred in Kentucky and that he was probably descended from the tribe of

Copperbottoms, or possibly the Tom Hals. The roan color prevailed in both

tribes and the horse himself looked like the Copperbottoms.

Gipsy Queen, at the time of the above race in 1860, was owned by a

“sporting man” named George Bidwell, of Chicago, or at least she raced

under his direction. About the time of this race, Mr. Thomas J. Vail

bought the mare and took her to Hartford, Connecticut. He bred her to

Toronto Chief and she produced a black colt. The mare and colt afterward

passed into the hands of Mr. William B. Smith, and this colt grew up to

be the famous Thomas Jefferson—“The Whirlwind of the East.” In connection

with Mr. Smith I devoted a good deal of labor to a futile search for the

origin and pedigree of this mare, and the result of our search amounted

to nothing more than a reasonable probability that she was bred at

Rochester, New York; was got by a son or grandson of Vermont Black Hawk

and was taken from there to Chicago. This latter point of the transfer to

Chicago seemed to be quite circumstantially fixed in Mr. Smith’s mind.

Mr. Allen W. Thomson, of Woodstock, Vermont—a man of great industry and a

lover of the truth for the truth’s sake—also made an exhaustive search,

and from a recent contribution to the press he evidently thinks he has

found it, and possibly he has; but while I generally agree with Mr.

Thomson’s conclusions, and prize them as honest and carefully reached,

I am forced to dissent in this case. Without going into details, he

brings the mare from Williamstown, Vermont, and takes her to Woodstock,

Illinois, where she is paired with another black mare, and after passing

through two or three hands they at last land in a public livery stable

in Chicago, and there the identity of the suppositious Gipsy Queen is

lost, and so far as known she never came out of that stable. One or

two years afterward a black mare from Chicago, in possession of George

Bidwell, appeared in some public races, notably the one given above, and

the conclusion is at once reached that this black mare, Gipsy Queen,

was the black filly brought from Williamstown, Vermont. To this all the

intermediate owners between Williamstown and Behrens’ livery stable were

ready to insist that this black mare was the Williamstown filly, but not

one of them had ever seen the mare that George Bidwell was handling, and

some of them evidently were not worthy of belief if they had seen her.

There is the “missing link” between Behrens’ stable and George Bidwell,

that has not been supplied and probably never can be supplied. The

chances that the Williamstown filly was the real Gipsy Queen, all things

considered, seem to stand as about one to a thousand. We must, therefore,

conclude that we have no satisfactory information as to how or where this

mare was bred.

BELLE OF WABASH.—My first inquiry about this mare was made more than

twenty-five years ago, and I did not then suppose that her pedigree would

ever become a question of any general interest. In the first volume of

the Register I had entered her as a black mare, foaled 1852, got by

Bassinger, son of Lieutenant Bassinger, and dam said to be by imported

William IV. She was then owned by George C. Stevens of Milwaukee,

Wisconsin. After her son—The Moor—proved himself a great sire of trotters

in getting Beautiful Bells, Sultan, and other good ones, her pedigree

became a question of very great importance. As the search for it would

occupy more space, in detail, than I can give to it in these pages, I

will here give the references in _Wallace’s Monthly_, where the principal

correspondence may be found: Vol. XIV., p. 510; XV., p. 441; XVI., p. 43;

and for a complete understanding of the matter the references here given

should be carefully examined.

Mr. S. D. Puett, of Indiana, was the first to give me a starting point in

the investigation of the pedigree of this mare. In all that had been said

about her I never was able to find a man who really knew anything about

her origin, until Mr. Puett gave me the address of Cyrus Romaine, who had

owned her when very young and handled her for speed. He says “she was

sired by a colt from her own dam, that was got by a Copperbottom stallion

from Kentucky.” He was not able to give any information about the sire of

the dam, and as to the gait of the dam he says: “Her dam was a natural

pacer. I cannot say as to her sire, as he was unbroken at the time.” He

bought the mare at three years old, handled her one year and sold her to

Mr. J. J. Alexander, of Montezuma, of the same county (Parke), in 1856.

Mr. Alexander still owned her in 1860 when she trotted in Louisville,

and after his death Williams, his trainer, married his widow and still

controlled the mare. Mr. Romaine failed to give the name of the breeder

of the mare, which will be explained further on. Soon after he wrote,

April 26, 1880, he removed to Nebraska and I have not heard from him

since. In 1857 she was trained for Mr. Alexander by John Williams on

Stroue’s track at Rockville, Indiana, the county seat of Parke County.

In 1860 she was entered by Williams in several races at Indianapolis

and at other points, and made a record of 2:40. About 1865, or perhaps

a year or two earlier, she became the property of George C. Stevens. In

his catalogue for 1868 she is entered merely as “Old Belle,” and he know

nothing of her origin or history till I gave it to him, along with the

humbug pedigree that I had copied from the entries at the Louisville

ten-mile race.

Through the kindness of Mr. Puett I received the following letter from

Mr. Henry C. Brown, a very reputable business man and a grain dealer

in Rockville, Parke County, Indiana. This letter from Mr. Brown has in

it such evidence of candor and intelligence that I will here insert it

entire:

“DEAR SIR: In reply to your inquiry of the 23d ult., as to what

I know of the ‘origin and history of the mare called Belle of

Wabash,’ I will give you the following _facts_:

“In the year 1855, or ’56, I am not positive which, this mare,

when a three-year-old, was purchased by Cyrus Romaine, then a

resident of this county, of an old farmer in Clay County, this

State, paying $85 for her. This farmer lived at that time about

a mile and a half north of Brazil, the present county-seat of

Clay County.

“As to this farmer’s name, neither myself nor Romaine can tell.

He was an old man at that time, and undoubtedly has gone to his

reward long ago. _Neither do we know anything at all about the

pedigree of the mare._

“There is no person living, so far as I or Romaine know, that

can tell anything about her ancestors, and in my opinion it

would be impossible, at this late day, to find any one in Clay

County that could give us any information in regard to her.

“The country around Brazil at that time was almost a

wilderness; now the city is spread out, and covers, no doubt,

the farm where the mare was foaled. Clay County is now the

center of the Indiana coal-fields, and, of course, the entire

face of the country about there is changed wonderfully since

1856; consequently it would be almost if not quite impossible

to find the exact location.

“After keeping the mare eight or nine months, Romaine sold

her to John Alexander, of Montezuma, this county, for $160.

Alexander soon after commenced training her, and in about one

year I think he, or his trainer, John Williams, took her to

Kentucky, and entered her there in some kind of races. Since

then you know her history much better than I do.

“At the time Romaine bought the mare he and I were trading in

stock together, boarding at the same house and sleeping in the

same bed. I mention, this only that you may understand that I

know what I am writing about.

“I am truly sorry that I cannot give you the true pedigree

of the mare, but it cannot be done. There is no man here or

anywhere else that can tell you anything more than I have

stated herein.

“You will no doubt think that there is considerable of

superfluous matter in this letter, but I do not see how I could

tell you what I wanted to in fewer words.

“Everything stated herein is _truth_, and, if necessary, I am

willing to make affidavit to the same at any time.

Very truly yours,

“HENRY C. BROWN.”

Mr. Romaine’s representation amounted to nothing definite or satisfactory

about the pedigree of Belle of Wabash, because he failed to give the name

and location of her breeder, but Mr. Brown’s letter clears this all up

on the grounds that Mr. Romaine really did not know the breeder’s name.

Whatever her sire and whatever her dam, we may feel sure they were not

trotting-bred, although she was a trotter. We are left, therefore, to

conclude that, as in a thousand other cases, this mare was a pacing-bred

trotter. The one point that is vital is settled by Mr. Brown, as he

was with Mr. Romaine when he bought the mare and knew all about the

transaction. He cannot remember the breeder’s name, but he locates him

as “living a mile and a half north of Brazil,” and that it is now all

cut up into residence and mining lots. This seems to fix the location

of the breeder beyond all doubt. This old man seems to have been a

pioneer in a very poor county and still a comparative wilderness when

this transaction took place. At that time the coal fields had not been

touched, and it is wholly beyond belief that he took his unknown old mare

out of his own county, across the adjoining county of Parke and into

Vermilion County, wherever in it Mr. Weisiger lived, to have her bred

to his part-bred stallion Bassinger. And then when he came to sell the

foal at three years old for $85, when horses were high, can we believe

he would do so without ever mentioning how the filly was bred? The chain

of ownership is complete, as she passed from her unnamed breeder to Mr.

Romaine, from him to Mr. Alexander, in whose hands she did her trotting,

and then to Mr. Williams, and there is no place for the Louisville humbug

pedigree to come in. She got her bogus pedigree at the same time and in

the same way that Magowan and Gipsy Queen got theirs, and there was not a

single shadow of truth in any one of them. The tenacity with which some

people hold on to a “thoroughbred” origin for their trotters when the

evidence is all against them has long been a mystery to honest folks,

who are able to look at things as they are; but it is not difficult to

understand the phenomenon when we analyze the reasons for it. First,

the owner is anxious to hold on to all he can possibly claim in the way

of aristocratic descent with the hope that it may help his sales; and

second, there are always a few “featherheads” with golden pockets ready

to buy that kind of stuff, because they have never gone far enough in

horse history to be able to kick themselves loose from the swaddling

clothes of their infantile prejudices.

PRINCE.—The chestnut gelding Prince was one of the great trotters in

the early “fifties.” He was pitted against Hero, the pacing son of

Harris’ Hambletonian, Lantern and others. As usual at that time he was

given a thoroughbred pedigree, which I was then led to accept, without

really knowing anything about his origin. He was represented to have

been bred in Kentucky, and owned by R. Ten Broeck of that State. Then

would naturally follow a thoroughbred pedigree coming from that State,

and nobody doubted it for a long time. He was represented to be by

Woodpecker, son of Bertrand; dam by imported Sarpedon; grandam said to be

thoroughbred. When he started in his ten-mile race against Hero, William

T. Porter said he was by Woodpecker, and out of that grew the pedigree

above. In the old _Spirit of the Times_, of October 11, 1856, there is a

short communication signed “Hiram,” in which is the only circumstantial

account of the origin of Prince that I have ever seen. It is implied by

the writer that he was bred by a Mr. Dey, of Chautauqua. County, New

York, for he says he was got by “an old chestnut horse called Duroc,

from Long Island,” and came of the Dey Mare. It seems that Dey sold the

colt to a young man named Worden, and he was first known as “the Worden

colt.” He was then sold to Manley Griswold, and from Griswold to Daniel

Vanvliet, who sold him in Buffalo to Bennett & Jones (or Thomas), for one

thousand dollars, and they sold him to William Whelan, of Long Island,

for fifteen hundred dollars. “Hiram” carries the history of the horse

no further, as he had then placed him in the hands of the great artists

of the trotting world. Of his sire, “Old Duroc,” he says he was taken

from Long Island to Villenova, in Chautauqua County, by a merchant of

that place, named George Hopkins, and after getting about twenty colts

he died. Among these twenty we find Prince and another afterward known

as the Walker Horse, which achieved a high local reputation as a sire

of trotters and I have frequently met with his cross in the pedigrees

of good animals. This showing is not absolutely complete, but it is

infinitely better than any other that has over been given to the public.

WAXY, the grandam of Sunol. When the two-year-old filly Sunol in 1888

came out and trotted a mile in 2:18, it fairly took one’s breath away,

and the first question on every tongue was, “How is she bred?” She was

represented to be by Electioneer, out of Waxana by General Benton, and

she out of Waxy by Lexington, and “thoroughbred.” When asked who bred her

and how it was known that Waxy was by Lexington, the answer came back

that the breeder was not known—that she had been taken across the plains

by a man who died on the way. The search then commenced for the breeder

of Waxy and the identification of her dam. As the search progressed there

were some very curious things developed. When it started in the spring

it was a yearling stallion colt, and when it reached California, in

the fall, it was a two-year-old filly. More than this, it was shown by

indubitable proofs, such as they were, that she had two dams, and then

shown that she had no dam at all. With such a Kentucky muddle on hand

there was an excellent opportunity for a controversy that might possibly

become somewhat heated. This controversy is famous in the history of the

exposures of untruthful pedigrees, and I will give a brief outline of it,

with some specimens of the evidence adduced to sustain it.

Early in the spring of 1864 Mr. John P. Welch, an intelligent man,

trained to the profession of civil engineer, reached the blue grass

region of Kentucky for the purpose of securing and taking across the

plains a band of well-bred horses to California. In this venture he was

backed by Mr. John Anderson, a wealthy gentleman of the latter State. Mr.

Welch was successful in perfecting his arrangements, and when on the very

eve of starting he sent forward a complete inventory of all the animals

he had in his band and sent this inventory to the _California Spirit

of the Times_, in which paper it was published May 14, 1864, and is as

follows:

1. Bay mare, 6 years old, by imp. Sovereign, dam by Glencoe, g. d.

Ann Merry.

2. Bay filly, 3 years, by Vandal, dam Miss Singleton by Old

Denmark, g. d. Bellamira by Monarch.

3. Bay filly, 2 years old, by Mambrino Chief, dam by Commodore.

4. Bay horse, 3 years old, by Mambrino Chief, dam by Gray Eagle.

5. Black colt, 2 years old, by Kt. of St. George, dam (dam of

Capitola) by Margrave.

6. Bay mare, 9 years old, by imp. Glencoe, dam by Rudolph, g. d.

Belle Anderson.

7. Bay filly, 2 years old, by Revenue, dam Sally Morgan by

Emancipation.

8. Chestnut filly, 4 years old, by Vandal, dam by Gray Eagle, g. d.

Churchill.

9. Chestnut mare by Wagner (dam of No. 11).

10. Bay mare by Sovereign.

11. Black colt, 2 years old, by Kt. of St. George, dam No. 9, by

Wagner.

12. Chestnut filly, 3 years old, by Jack Gamble, dam Betty King by

Boston.

13. Bay mare, 6 years old, by imp. Sovereign, dam by Mirabeau, g. d.

Arabella.

14. Captain Beard, b. s., 9 years old, by imp. Yorkshire, dam by imp.

Glencoe, g. d. by imp. Leviathan, g. g. d. by Stockholder.

15. Gray mare by Gray Eagle, dam Mary Morris, by Medoc.

16. Hope, ch. m. by Glencoe, dam Susette by Aratus.

17. Bay mare by Sovereign, dam by Gray Eagle.

18. Chestnut filly, 2 years old, by Bob Johnson, dam by Brawner’s

Eclipse.

19. Chestnut filly, 3 years old, by Kt. of St. George, dam by Gray

Eagle.

20. Bay colt, one year old, by Lexington, dam by Gray Eagle, g. d.

Mary Morris.

21. Ch. c., 2 years old by Ringgold, dam Hope by Glencoe.

22 and 23. Pair 3:00 six-year-old trotting mares.

24. Black mare, trotter, 8 years old; time, 2:50.

25. Bay gelding, trotter, 5 years old; time, near 3:00.

26. Bay mare for show, but not to go.

From this inventory we must conclude that Mr. Welch was a careful and

methodical man. He knew he had twenty-six animals ready to start,

and after he had written off the descriptions and pedigrees of these

twenty-six animals he verified his work by numbering them from one to

twenty-six inclusive, and then he knew he had not omitted any one. This

inventory is the basis of the whole truth in this matter, and is the

only evidence in the wide world of what animals Mr. Welch started with

to California. As this is the vital and only starting point to reach the

truth, I trust my readers will examine it again carefully and see whether

it includes any filly or mare by Lexington, of any age. When you ask any

of these “more-running-blood-in-the-trotter” people who took Waxy, the

phantom daughter of Lexington, to California, you will get an evasive

answer, and when pressed they will at last say, John P. Welch. Now, as to

John P. Welch, “he being dead yet speaketh.” From his unknown grave he

tells these people they are trying to establish what is not true, and

with his ghostly finger points to the inventory and demands, “Where is

the Lexington filly in that list? You are trying to displace the truth

with a falsehood,” and he drives this charge home to the heart of each

one of them.

Here we might close this case and leave it to the enlightened judgment

of all intelligent and honest people, for there is not a scintilla

of evidence that any two-year-old daughter of Lexington was taken to

California in 1864. Until this evidence is adduced, no attempt to

overthrow the contents of John P. Welch’s inventory has a single peg to

stand on. But I am not yet done with some of the peculiarities that have

been developed in this case, for long ago I learned in this pedigree

business,

“That for ways that are dark,

And for tricks that are vain,

The heathen Chinee is peculiar.”

At this point the case bifurcates, one fork leading to the Grey Eagle

mare as the dam of Waxy, and the other to the Brawner’s Eclipse mare, and

I think my language will not be wholly unparliamentary when I pronounce

them both frauds. Mr. Levi S. Gould, a worthy business man of Boston,

whom I have always esteemed as honest, was the first to dig up this whole

matter in the columns of the _California Spirit of the Times_, and the

first to give the above inventory to the public. He traveled thousands

of miles and claimed to have traced Waxy to the stable of her breeder,

Philip Swigert, of Frankfort, Kentucky. The full account of his laborious

trip was published in _Wallace’s Monthly_ for March, 1889, p. 17. In the

inventory he found one animal got by Lexington, but this was a bay colt

of 1863, and out of the Grey Eagle mare, but he wanted a chestnut filly.

After studying the matter over, he concluded that this “bay colt” was a

typographical error for “chestnut filly” and that this established the

pedigree of Waxy. He interviewed a number of people who had known of, or

had been in some way connected with, the Welch venture, and they were

all able to confirm his discovery of the typographical error, and could

recount to a nicety their distinct recollections of the sorrel filly by

Lexington, out of the Grey Eagle mare. These people seemed to possess

the most astonishing memories, and the color, breeding and age of a

filly they had not seen nor heard of for a quarter of a century all came

back to them with as much freshness as though the events had occurred

yesterday. Then there was a peculiar element in their memories, for they

could recall everything about this one filly and nothing about any of the

others. At last Mr. Gould reached Mr. Brodhead, of Kentucky, where the

“finishing touches” were put upon the pedigree of Waxy. Mr. Satterwhite

did not reach Woodburn till after Mr. Gould had left, but that did not

prevent him from making a “statement” that exactly fitted the theory

of the pedigree as matured by Mr. Gould and Mr. Brodhead. He had been

Mr. Philip Swigert’s foreman in 1864, and had a right to know something

of the transfer of some eight or ten head of stock from Mr. Swigert to

Mr. Welch in the spring of that year. Satterwhite was quite too good a

witness, as he disclosed his cramming frightfully. He remembered “the

light chestnut filly, by Lexington and out of the Grey Eagle mare,” with

great distinctness and was sure she was foaled in 1863. In no single case

was he certain except in the filly by Lexington, and in no single case

was he able to give the ages of the other young things correctly. After

Satterwhite made his visit to Woodburn, Mr. Brodhead wrote Mr. Gould as

follows:

“Satterwhite says Dick Jackson was with Welch. I think, with

what you have, the pedigree of Waxy is conclusively proved, and

you can get your article ready. The sooner it is published the

better. I forwarded some letters to you, and I hope they gave

you additional information.”

It will be remembered that Mr. Gould started out on the assumption that,

as there was but one animal in the inventory by Lexington and that was

a bay colt of 1863, that “colt,” he argued, was a typographical error,

and instead of “bay colt” it should read “sorrel filly.” On this very

uncertain basis he worked throughout. On this basis he collected all his

futile statements. On this basis, and to lend a helping hand, Satterwhite

testified; and on this basis Brodhead wrote, “With what you have, the

pedigree of Waxy is conclusively proved.” Now that Mr. Brodhead is

satisfied and that Mr. Bruce promptly entered Waxy in his Stud Book as by

Lexington and out of the Grey Eagle mare, we must drop the whimsical idea

of the “typographical error” and consider whether the bay colt of 1863,

by Lexington, did really become a sorrel filly of 1862 when he reached

California a few months later.

1. The bay colt, No. 20, of the inventory, was the only animal in the

band by Lexington. He was a foal of 1863, and was a year younger than any

of the others.

2. In speaking of the losses, by death on the route, of some of the more

noted animals, Mr. Anderson enumerates the noted stallion Captain Beard,

and a very fine yearling colt by Lexington, called Frank. Here perished

the only foal by Lexington in the band, and we may as well bury Mr.

Gould’s and Mr. Brodhead’s “typographical error” with him, for the colt

kicked it to death before he died.

3. When the band reached California there were several additions smuggled

into it as being part of the originals from Kentucky, and among these

additions was the light chestnut filly that has been since known as Waxy,

given as a foal of 1862, and got by Lexington, dam unknown.

4. As Mr. Brodhead had proved conclusively, from the records at Woodburn,

that Mr. Swigert’s Grey Eagle mare was barren in 1862, the “typographical

error” parties found themselves placed “between the devil and the deep

sea.”

This outside filly that had been smuggled into the band of Kentuckians

was advertised along with them, as a foal of 1862, in the fall of 1864;

she was sold as a foal of 1862; she was entered in a sweepstake for

three-year-olds as a foal of 1862; she was exhibited at a horse show as

a foal of 1862; she started to run the only race she ever attempted as a

foal of 1862, and proving herself utterly worthless as a race mare, she

was given away on the spot as a foal of 1862.

As the only representative of Lexington in the band was “the yearling bay

colt Frank,” as shown by Mr. Anderson, the partner of Mr. Welch; and as

the records at Woodburn had clearly and distinctly shown that Swigert’s

Grey Eagle mare was barren in 1862, the bottom was out of the conspiracy

and it was abandoned. There was a little fussing about the possibility

that there might have been a mistake and that Waxy might have been a foal

of 1863 after all, but it amounted to nothing more than the enfeebled

squeak of an asthmatic mouse and then all was quiet.

Before passing to the other branch of the investigation, this seems to be

the proper place to speak of the incidents of the sale and its sequences

at the Fair Grounds at San Jose, January 3, 1865. There were some twelve

or fifteen head, that had been previously advertised, offered at public

sale, and a number of those were sold, all indeed in which this inquiry

has any interest. When the stock arrived at San Jose, there was a good

deal of confusion, and it is just possible that some of them were not

correctly placed. The only discrepancy which I have found between Mr.

Welch’s inventory and the facts is in the color of the filly No. 18, that

appears in the inventory as a chestnut, but is advertised and sold as a

bay. This mistake in color is not infrequent in the spring of the year

before the old coat is shed, and I think it may be reasonably accounted

for on this ground. James L. Eoff, well known from ocean to ocean as the

king of all “horse sharps,” seems to have taken a good deal of interest

in assorting the animals and in picking up scraps of information from

the boys who had come with them. At the same time he was an excellent

judge of racing stock, and as silent as the grave to the victims whom

he sought to mislead and then beat. In this way he soon knew more about

the breeding of the animals than those in charge of them. Mr. William

Woodward seems to have been his friend (?) with plenty of money, but a

perfect “tenderfoot” in the mysteries of the race horse. No doubt he

pointed out to Mr. Woodward the so-called Lexington filly and advised

him to buy her, assuring him that he wanted her himself, but if he

wanted to take a little fly in racing he would not bid against him. The

sale came off, and Eoff ran up the Revenue filly, out of Sally Morgan,

to three hundred and twenty-five dollars and got her, it is said, for

Theodore Winters. When they came to the filly by Bob Johnson, out of

the mare by Brawner’s Eclipse, Eoff bought her at two hundred and fifty

dollars for himself, and named her Lilly Hitchcock. The next animal sold

was the filly by Lexington, dam unknown, and she was bought by William

Woodward at two hundred and fifty dollars, and he named her Waxy. The

sale was slimly attended and much of the stock was bid in for the owner,

Mr. John Anderson. That night the wine flowed very freely, as it was

the initiation of the “tenderfoot,” Mr. Woodward, into the ranks of

running-horse men. After they all “got hot” (except Eoff), a sweepstakes

was opened for the three fillies, Ada C. (the Revenue filly), Lilly

Hitchcock and Waxy, at two hundred and fifty dollars each, and Eoff was

careful to see that it was made “play or pay.” The race was a dash of

a mile and a quarter, and it took place nearly twelve months after the

match was made. Eoff won easily with Lilly Hitchcock, and Waxy was so

badly beaten that Woodward gave her away on the spot and “swore off”

ever owning another running horse. Thus Eoff’s cunning carried his plot

through, without a break at any point. From the hour he bought this filly

he stoutly maintained she was by Lexington and out of the Brawner’s

Eclipse mare. She ran all her races under this pedigree and never was

challenged, and if ever there was a mare in California bred in this way,

this is likely to be the mare. We can understand just how he could have

discovered where Waxy came from, and that she never saw Kentucky, and on

this knowledge he based the game he played on poor Woodward.

After the failure to establish the claim that Waxy came out of Philip

Swigert’s Grey Eagle mare and publicly confessing that the evidence upon

which Mr. Gould and Mr. Brodhead based their conclusions was fallacious

and the conclusions themselves incorrect, the advocates of “more running

blood in the trotter” pulled themselves together for another bout. What

purported to be an old document was dug up somewhere—indeed I am told

there were two of them dug up, one in Kentucky and the other somewhere

on the Pacific coast—purporting to be duplicates of an agreement entered

into, in March, 1864, between John P. Welch, of California and Philip

Swigert, of Kentucky, by which Welch agreed to take certain blood horses

to California and sell or breed them on the shares, etc. This document

possessed all the paraphernalia of authenticity, with government stamp,

witnesses to the signatures of the contracting parties, etc. This

document (I don’t know which “duplicate”) was shown to me in April, 1891,

and at the first glance, and without reading a word except the date, it

astounded me. There was a paper purporting to be twenty-seven years old,

and it looked as bright and fresh as though it had been written within

twenty-seven hours. There was no fading of the luster of the ink and

there was no ageing in the color of the paper. Having devoted a great

deal of time to the examination of writings, varying in age from one day

to a hundred years and more, and this experience extending through many

years, I ought to be a fairly competent judge of the effects of age on

ink and paper. Here was a paper purporting to be over a quarter of a

century old with all the newness of yesterday, and when Mr. J. C. Simpson

showed it to me I was impressed with the belief, on this one point of

evidence alone, that it was spurious, and that Mr. Simpson had been made

a victim by some rascally scrivener. With so much for the appearance of

the paper, on its face, we will now examine the contents and see whether

any evidence can there be found that will throw further light on the

question of its authenticity. Unfortunately I have not what purports to

be the original of this document before me, and I must therefore depend

upon my memory and upon what Judge Halsey, as attorney for Mr. Brodhead,

has printed as the contents. In giving the list of animals I will follow

the order of the “document” and place before each one, for convenience

of reference, the number attached to that animal in Mr. Welch’s original

inventory.

15. One gray mare, by Grey Eagle, out of Mary Morris.

16. One sorrel mare, Hope, by Glencoe.

17. Sovereign filly, out of Grey Eagle mare, four years old.

8. Vandal filly, out of bay Grey Eagle mare, four years old.

18. One two-year-old filly, by Bob Johnson, out of bay Grey Eagle mare.

19. One two-year-old filly by Lexington.

20. One yearling colt, by Lexington, out of Grey Eagle mare.

21. One two-year-old filly, by Ringgold, out of Hope.

In looking over this list there are several points suggested for remark

and they all have a bearing, more or less direct, on the question at

issue. The list seems to have been prepared, if prepared by Mr. Swigert,

very hurriedly and without sufficient regard to completeness or accuracy.

He started off, possibly to make a careful list, as he gave the color

of the two-year-old mares at the head and then dropped all purpose of

completeness and gave no colors nor descriptions to those that followed.

He gives No. 21 as a filly when it was a colt, and so appears in the

inventory, was sold as a colt with pedigree at San Jose, January, 1865,

and again, with the same pedigree, at The Willows, February, 1866. Under

ordinary conditions the statement of the breeder should be conclusive

against all others, but in this case the evident hurry and absence of

descriptions have destroyed the value of the whole list, in great degree,

as evidence that could be accepted with safety. We must, therefore, look

for something in the way of evidence more deliberative and descriptive

in its preparation, and this we find in the joint work of Mr. Swigert

and Mr. Welch, as embodied in the inventory. When the descriptions of

the animals were taken, both men were equally interested in accuracy and

completeness, both were present, and probably the animals were before

them. Hence my infinitely greater confidence in the deliberative work of

the two, as found in the inventory.

The one point about which all this hubbub has been raised is the

so-called “Lexington filly,” that appears as the sixth in the above

list. She has no number attached to her name, and this means that she

was not in the inventory, and it means more than this; for it is, in a

manner, the dying testimony of an honest man that he took no Lexington

filly to California, and fortunately this testimony has been preserved.

The methods introduced to prove that Welch did take her are the methods

of the imbecile. Let us admit, for the moment, that Swigert had a

Lexington filly and that she was in a contract with Welch to be taken to

California; does that prove that Welch took her, when he says he did not?

There are hundreds and hundreds of people every year who buy steamship

tickets to go to Europe who fail to go. The records of Mr. Swigert’s

ticket office show that the ticket was bought, but they fail to show

that the purchaser went aboard the ship. You must go to Purser Welch and

get a list of passengers actually on board in order to determine who did

and who did not go. Accidents, sickness and death are all factors in the

movements, of horses just as they are in the movements of human beings.

It is the observation of a long lifetime that horsemen are never so

near their best as fools as when they attempt to establish a fraudulent

pedigree by evidence that utterly fails to cover the case. They claim

to have found a ticket that would carry Waxy to California, and whether

genuine or counterfeit they rely wholly on this ticket as evidence that

she went. The master of the vessel affirms she was not aboard his vessel,

and in support of this he shows a complete list and description of the

passengers numbered from one to twenty-six inclusive. This is the whole

thing in a nutshell. The proof is clear and conclusive that Mr. Welch did

not take any daughter of Lexington to California. Now, will the prominent

and active supporters of Waxy’s pedigree, as a daughter of Lexington,

come forward and in a manly way answer this question of five words? “_Who

took Waxy to California?_” If Welch, prove it. If anybody else, prove it.

We may be able to catch a few gulls with chaff, the first attempt, but we

can’t repeat it. If the question can be answered, it is well, and if not,

honest people will form their own conclusions that it is not sustained

and is no more worthy of belief than the “Grey Eagle mare” form of the

same pedigree, which is now universally conceded to be a fiction.

AMERICAN ECLIPSE.—It is not my purpose to frighten people by overthrowing

landmarks that have stood for years, but it is my purpose to tell the

truth and expose falsehood in pedigrees wherever I meet it. As a

satisfaction and guide to breeders in the future it is important to know

just how the early stock were bred, although they may have belonged to

past generations. A breeder never can know too much of the lines in

which he is operating. This great horse was a good chestnut, with a star

and left hind foot white. He was stout, with heavy limbs, and somewhat

coarse, and not of the best quality, but possibly better than the

average of the Durocs. He was a fraction of an inch below fifteen two.

He was foaled 1814, got by Duroc, son of imported Diomed; dam Miller’s

Damsel, by imported Messenger; grandam a mare by Pot8os, imported by Mr.

Constable along with the horse Baronet, in 1795. This is just as far as

we can go with any certainty, and this leaves the greatest race horse of

his day far short of being thoroughbred. When Mr. Constable bought the

Pot8os mare in England he got no certificate of pedigree, but he was told

there she was out of a mare by Gimcrack. Mr. Cadwallader R. Colden was

the best-informed man of his day on the history, blood, and performances

of the blood-horse, was a very intimate and warm friend of Mr. Constable,

and he did everything that could be done to straighten out and extend

this pedigree, but he utterly failed. He thought it probable that the

mare was thoroughbred, but he believed the Gimcrack cross was a fiction.

Some eighteen or twenty years ago, when in London, Mr. Tattersall

suggested to me that if Lord Grosvenor bred a filly by Pot8os in 1792

that was thoroughbred, there could hardly be a doubt that she was entered

in some of the stakes for three-year-olds. Then and there we searched the

old records, but nothing could be found to support the supposed pedigree.

It was not till 1832 that any special effort was made to establish the

pedigree through the press, and in January of that year the famous

Patrick Nesbit Edgar, of North Carolina, wrote as follows to Mr. Skinner,

editor of the _American Turf Register_:

“The authority I had for sending the remote pedigree of

American Eclipse for publication was that it was furnished me

lately by a gentleman in England, who put himself to uncommon

pains to procure it. He resides near Bath, in that country. All

the authority requisite I have at this time in my possession.

The Pot8os mare was got by Pot8os; her dam, foaled in 1778, by

Gimcrack, out of Snap-Dragon, sister to Angelica by Snap. (See

English Stud Book.)”

Mr. Edgar wrote more on the same subject, after he was pressed to it by

Mr. Colden, but he failed to produce any evidence whatever that he was

telling the truth. According to his representations his correspondence on

the subject had been very extensive, and he complained that he had paid

out forty shillings in postage.

It will be observed how cleverly Mr. Edgar conceals the sources of

his information while he pretends to give them, and that has been the

favorite “dodge” of all rascally “pedigree makers” from that day till

the present. Mr. Constable always insisted that the mare was bred by

Lord Grosvenor, and that she was by Pot8os, but he did not insist that

she was out of a mare by Gimcrack. As Lord Grosvenor was one of the

most prominent of all breeders of race horses in his day, and as he

evidently kept the records of his stud with more care than most of his

contemporaries, we might reasonably expect to find some trace of this

mare if she was thoroughbred. After a careful and diligent search of all

the records of that period, it is found that Lord Grosvenor never bred a

Gimcrack filly to Pot8os. This disposes of Mr. Edgar’s humbug story, and

when we state the pedigree of American Eclipse we can simply say he was

got by Duroc; dam Miller’s Damsel by Messenger, and grandam the imported

Pot8os mare, and there we must stop.