FANCIERS' JOU 



F 



481 

 F363 

 BIRD 



AND 



POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



Vol. I. 



PHILADELPHIA, MAY 7, 1874. 



No. 19. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



THE NEW AMERICAN (?) STANDARD OF 

 EXCELLENCE. 



I have delayed criticising or commenting upon the work 

 of the Buffalo Convention until now: first, because had I 

 taken the initiative, it would have been asserted that I did 

 it in malice ; and second, because I wished to see whether 

 American fanciers could and would swallow this abortion. 



Had it proceeded from the " masses of the fanciers," as 

 claimed by the President of this " organization of prominent, 

 solid, and active men of the United States and Canada," per- 

 haps, after repeated efforts, the outsiders might have been 

 able to keep down the nauseous dose ; but when it was 

 apparent that the said "masses" consisted of less than one 

 hundred persons all told (see list of members in No. 7 of 

 Fanciers' Journal), and of this list of members only thirty 

 were present and participated in the work of the revision 

 committees, and that their work was to be further revised 

 by a select committee, the pill was too large ; although nicely 

 coated with sugar, it would not go down. 



I must here enter my protest, as chairman of the Com- 

 mittee on Black Spanish, against the select committee's 

 work. In our report (of which I still have the minutes) 

 we did not describe the plumage of the Black Spanish hen 

 as " black, with a reddish metallic lustre on the back and 

 wings." See the New American Standard, page 47, fourth 

 line from bottom. 



I do not propose to enter any protests for other com- 

 mittees, but I cannot believe that they reported their work 

 as is recorded throughout this book. Briefly to note a few 

 of the most prominent errors, see 31, last line, "hardiness 

 of plumage " instead of "hardness." Page 45, sixth line 

 from top, "marked all over as possible up to bill." Who 

 can make sense out of that ? Same page, in disqualifications, 

 "feathers on legs, or any color but bright yellow." What is 

 to be any color but bright yellow? feathers? It should be, 

 " or legs of any color," &c. Page 46, see the arrangement 

 of disqualifications in Spanish cock. Why? It is not so in 

 the committee's report. Page 61, "Disqualifications. In 

 "White-Crested Black Polish, crooked backs, &c." Page 63, 

 Golden and Silver Polish, disqualifications, "crooked backs 

 and wry tails," should be " crooked backs or wry tails " — a 

 vast difference in the meaning. Page 81, second line from 

 top, " the top covered with a peak behind," &c, instead of, 

 " the comb covered with small points, with a peak behind, " &c. 

 Page 82, disqualifications in Black Bantams, two very im- 

 portant items omitted entirely, viz. : " Legs not black or 

 dark leaden blue; combs other than rose." Same page, 

 third line from bottom, what does it mean? I cannot find 

 anything about "smallness of size " in the description of 

 Sebrights. On next page, 83, "combs other than rose" is 

 again omitted in disqualifications in White Bantams. 



These are but a few of the most glaring errors ;"tbey can 

 be counted by the scores ; and those of typograph 



punctuation are legion. And yet, at the very opening of 

 the work, we have the certificate of the Committee of Pub- 

 lication, that they " have compared this edition of the 

 'American Standard of Excellence' with the official min- 

 utes," &c. In justice to two members of that committee, 

 Messrs. Estes and Wade, I will here state, that neither of 

 them ever compared this edition with the minutes; and 

 further, that the publication of their names, as having done 

 so, was entirely unauthorized by either of them. 



The truth is, that the whole of the new Standard of Excel- 

 lence has been copied as much as possible from the old Hart- 

 ford edition, which was teeming with errors of all kinds. 

 When I advertised the edition of Standard of Excellence 

 which I edited in 1871, as " the only correct one," I meant 

 exactly what I stated. Not only the errors above quoted 

 were to be found in the old Hartford edition, but dozens 

 more even worse than these. And here we have them 

 forced upon our fanciers again, and are required to pay one 

 dollar per copy for an illiterate, incorrect pamphlet of one 

 hundred pages, of poor flimsy paper; a pamphlet which can 

 be issued at a cost of ten cents per copy in such numbers as 

 it was proposed to print. 



The views of a correspondent of a weekly paper, published 

 in New York City, are so pertinent to this subject, that I 

 quote them. He says : 



"And when these delegates arrived at Buffalo, they were 

 met by the members of this American Poultry Society, who 

 invited them to step in, pay three dollars, and they might 

 consider themselves members of the Society. Why was not 

 the convention organized for the purpose for which it was 

 called ? It would then have been a convention of the 

 1 poultry men of America.' Why was it necessary for these 

 delegates to pass through the vestibule of this Association to 

 make or revise the standard ? Those who were unwilling 

 to part with their three dollars, or join the Association, were 

 deprived of the privileges of a delegate, and their con- 

 stituents -were unrepresented. Was not the standard, by 

 this piece of legerdemain, taken out of the hands of the 

 poultry men of the country, and placed in the hands of a 

 select body of men calling themselves the American Poultry 

 Association ? Therefore ' the standard ' is not ' the Ameri- 

 can Standard of Excellence,' it is the standard of the 

 American Poultry Association, and we are yet without an 



'American' standard An imperfect and incomplete 



standard, published in pamphlet form, consisting of 102 

 pages, worth, if perfect, twenty-five cents, sold at the price 

 of one dollar. This may be sharp practice, gentlemen, but 

 not entirely consistent with the lofty character given by the 

 President to members composing the Association." 



Mr. Babcock, whom I have not the pleasure of knowing 

 either personally or by correspondence, hits the nail exactly 

 on the head when he says, " This Association has nothing 

 whatever in its organization, method of meeting, or results 

 that is worthy of the title American." 



An American Standard of Excellence must be compiled, 

 revised, and adopted in open meeting. Every man, woman 

 or child, who is-inter'eS'ted in the subject, should be allowed 

 rice in the discussion if they desire; and when 

 flfei*»J(V/j^jNiiiaI]y adopts a standard, it should not be 



