In regard to intense inbreeding, as in the case of mating dogs from the same sire and dam, or the bitch to her sire, or dam to son, I thing it is highly objectionable and should never under any circumstances be resorted to; failure will ensue.  Far better to let the bitch go by unmated and lose six months than mate her in this way because a suitable stud dog was not at the time available.  I believe that this inbreeding is productive of excessive nervousness, weakness in physical form, the impairment of breeding functions, and the predisposition to disease in its multiform manifestations.

[Illustration:  Edward Axtell, Jr.,

and One of His Boston Terriers]

[Illustration:  E. S. Pollard,

A Large and Successful Breeder]

[Illustration:  St. Botolph’s Mistress King]

That eminent authority, Sir John Seabright, the originator of the early race of bantams, known as the silver and gold spangled Seabrights, also conducted an exhaustive series of experiments on the inbreeding of dogs and demonstrated to an absolute certainty that the system was productive of weakness, diminished growth, and general weediness.  His experiments had a world-wide reputation and the writer, when he first visited his large estates near London, little dreamed that in after years he would personally benefit by Sir John’s work.  I believe the prevailing ideas in many quarters a number of years ago, as to the general stupidity of the Boston terrier (and in some isolated cases I believed well founded), arose from the fact that it was popularly believed he was too much inbred.  I will give just one case of inbreeding in our kennels, tried for experiment’s sake, as a warning.  I took the most rugged bitch I possessed and mated her to her sire, a dog of equal vigor.  The result was six puppies, strong, and as handsome as a picture.  When two months old they were sold to different parties on the Eastern seaboard, from Philadelphia up to the Canadian line.  This was before the West had “caught on” to the breed.  About two months later I had a letter from New York stating that the pup was growing finely, but that he seemed to be hard of hearing.  A few days after this I received another epistle from Salem that the puppy I had sent on was believed to be stone deaf.  It would be superfluous to add that the purchase money was returned, and the other four customers were notified of the condition of the others.  It may seem somewhat incredible, but two out of the four stated that they believed the pups had defective hearing, and declined to receive their money back, and the other two stated that before my notification they had never observed that their dogs were deaf.  Here was a case of the entire litter being perfect practically in every other respect, and yet every one stone deaf, and in my estimation not worth a sou.  As we have never had a case of deafness in our kennels before or since, we attribute this solely to inbreeding.