Excerpt from The Breeders' Journal, Vol. 5: January, 1884 The discussion as to the merits of the different beef breeds has been active during the last ten or twelve years. At the commencement of this period it would have seemed as though the Shorthorns were firmly fixed as the leading breed for the production of beef, and this held for several years after these discussions commenced. A leading writer in their interest said, as to the merits of breeds, that it had already been decided that the Shorthorns held the first position, and it was not a question to be again opened. This same writer at another time did compare the breeds, and when we took this up and invited a full and frank investigation as to merits, his reply was that life was too short to enter upon a partisan discussion, and declined the invitation. This same writer has been active in all conventions and through the press in advocating the Shorthorn interest from that time to this, and not only has he been thus active and persistent, but all the lesser writers that have ever been arrayed in support of that breed have been equally persistent and active. They have had the control of the agricultural and live-stock press; they have had control of the agricultural societies, and still there has been a steady decline in the Shorthorn interest - not in numbers, but in values. These same writers, in seeking to account for the Shorthorns want of reputation upon the plains among range cattle, claim that the loss is occasioned through the bad practices of speculators in taking worthless specimens of the breed to the plains, claiming for them purity of breeding, while other breeds, and especially the Herefords, have sent out their best specimens. This explanation, however, is not true, for there have been one hundred or more thoroughbred Shorthorns taken from the States to the plains where one thoroughbred Hereford has been sent. But they need not go to the plains for any explanation of the kind. They can go among the farmers and stockmen of the States, where they have had the first place for the last fifty years, and where there has been but very little thoroughbred blood used but the Shorthorn, and they stand among these farmers and stockmen with less reputation than they have upon the plains. But it is not necessary to follow these inquiries. One has but to learn from the Shorthorn journals that their reputation is gone, and they may account for it by bad and dishonest practices, bad breeding, or any other reason. The fact remains, and there is no better expression in accounting for it than that of Mr. Geo. W. Rust, in a letter to the Breeders' Gazette in one of its earliest issues, in which he says that "farmers had heard much of the Shorthorn breed of cattle and of their ability to improve the common stock of the country, and having tried them and been disappointed, they were seeking some other breed that would accomplish this purpose." These same writers and journalists and show managers, in seeking to destroy the growing influence of the Hereford breed of cattle, when failing in their arguments for the Shorthorns, pushed the Scot to the front, claiming, if there was to be any change, that the Scot was a better animal than the Hereford. This persistent pushing led many firm friends of the Shorthorn who were seeking an improvement to adopt the Scots, and gave them a prominence that their merits did not entitle them to; and that, for this reason, the Scot is not a first-class grazing beast, and from grass cannot make first quality of meat - in other words, . they cannot go from grass to the top of the market; as a feeder, and for quality from the stall, and through the feeding process only, that they can go to the top of the market anywhere. One of the most prominent arguments used in favor of the Scots is the absence of horns. This feature has been pushed persistently and untiringly. We have only to say that, so far as this clai