290 



FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



rushed through the printer's hands pell-mell, but carefully 

 read, compared with official minutes, and re-read before it 

 is issued from the press. 



And now I must say a word about those who participated 

 in the work at Buffalo in January last. As a whole they 

 were a most intelligent and respectable body of men. Very 

 many of them, however, were new hands in the business, 

 and honestly stated that they came there to learn, not to 

 teach. Many, like myself, went there with no intention of 

 joining the Association, but found that unless they did they 

 could have no seat in the convention ; and I think I may 

 add, on their behalf, that had they known with what con- 

 summate art resolution after resolution would be offered and 

 passed (by a vote of not one-third of the members, the 

 majority of them not voting because not seeing the drift of 

 the resolutions), each one drawing tighter and tighter the 

 coils of the "Ring," they would have returned home the 

 first day of the convention rather than be identified with 

 the proceedings which have brought so little credit to those 

 who worked so hard and so faithfully, only to have their 

 labors nullified by self-constituted mentors. 

 Eye, April 23, 1874. A. M. HALSTED. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE. 



"A member" in your issue of April 9th, seems to feel 

 very unpleasant (with himself, I should say), perhaps be- 

 cause he paid out his money to become a member of the 

 American Poultry Association. Certainly, because he paid 

 for two copies of their standard at the price fixed by the 

 Association at Buffalo, whereby the Association received a 

 good profit. As it was estimated and hoped they would 

 make enough out of the sales of their standard during the 

 coming spring, summer, and fall, to warrant them in get- 

 ting up a national, or rather an international show the 

 coming winter, when more than the profits on publica- 

 tion of standard would be distributed among the fanciers 

 and breeders of America, who had so willingly and kindly 

 contributed their mite toward the great enterprise, whereby 

 all the fraternity would be benefited — indirectly, if not 

 directly — and it must be known by all, that the work is one 

 that at best only a limited sale can be looked for, notwith- 

 standing to quote " A member." " One hundred thousand 

 standards are wanted." "And they contain really valuable 

 matter, and a kind no poultry breeder can do without." 

 If the Association dispose of, say eight to ten thousand 

 copies within the year, they will do well, then the Associa- 

 tion may feel like going in for a show ; but if there are 

 many, (and I have great reason to think they are few), that 

 feel as benevolently towards them as "A member," it will 

 be a long time before America can boast her grand exhibi- 

 tion. 



Poultry has always been my hobby, but not the only one. 

 I take a numismatic quarterly that costs three dollars per 

 year, and has no more reading matter than is furnished for 

 one dollar in the standard, and I would not be without 

 either of them for Jive times the cost. I must therefore take 

 exception to "A member," dubbing the standard a misera- 

 ble little pamphlet ; (I wonder what it would be if he owned 

 it.) To those who have not seen it, I would say it is a work 

 of over one hundred pages, gotten up in good type, on good 

 paper, with good heavy paper covers ; and as for the profits, 

 they all go to the owner and publisher, who, "A member" 

 knows, is the American Poultry Association ; and one dol- 

 lar is as low as they should be asked (under the circumstan- 

 ces), to sell it for at retail, and it is worth it to any one who 

 has a half dozen fowls he thinks enough of to wish to im- 

 prove them. E. S. Ralph. 



Buffalo, N. Y. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



"OLD" OR "NEW?" 



Mr. Editor. 



Are we to be governed by the old standard or the new 

 one? Or are we to have the valuable pages of our poultry- 

 journals continually taken up with discussions in "regard to> 

 Churchman and Halsted, which is of no vital importance 

 to the mass of poultry breeders ? The important question 

 is with most of us, Which shall be our standard? I would 

 suggest that the executive committees of all the poultry 

 associations in the United States vote at once on the new 

 standard ; then, if a majority of the associations vote for it, 

 why, adopt it at once; on the other hand, if the majority of 

 the poultry associations vote against its adoption, then pub- 

 lish the fact in the poultry magazines of the United States 

 that the poultry associations of the country will be governed 

 by the standard of 1871 until the time shall come when the 

 poultry breeders of America will unite together in perfect 

 harmony and adopt a standard which shall receive the- 

 hearty approval of all. Respectfully, 



DOYLESTOWN, PA. W. T. ROGERS. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 

 Jos. M. Wade, Esq. 



I see in No. 16 of the Fanciers' Journal quite a lengthy 

 article in regard to the new standard and another conven- 

 tion, etc., and it seems to me the writer has labored hard to 

 bring into disrepute the men and their doings, without just 

 cause. I do not think his arguments well put — for instance: 

 He says that he " coincides with correspondent W. that 

 there was no need of this (so-called) thorough revision of 

 the previous American standard." But every one knows 

 there was much dissatisfaction with it, and called it the one- 

 man standard, and most everything else. Yet he thinks 

 that another convention will be called because of dissatis- 

 faction at the last revision adopted by a select few with 

 closed doors, three dollars admission fee, etc. He had the 

 same privilege as the " select few " to attend if he had 

 availed himself of it. If admission fee is wrong, why is it 

 not wrong to charge membership fees by State societies 

 or entrance fees at shows — as one must pay or he cannot 

 show his fowls, must buy a ticket or he cannot get in ? A . 

 man can dance or not, as he pleases, but if he dances he 

 must help pay the fiddlers. He compares this convention 

 to " the mountain that has labored to bring forth a very 

 small mouse." Only three days' labor spent in this revision, 

 he says. I would ask if any one thinks men can spend all 

 winter at a hen convention ? I was one of those who did 

 not give it any time, other business preventing ; but men 

 came from all parts of the United States and the Canadas — 

 prominent breeders — as the list shows for itself. Now he 

 would have another convention called, have it free to all, 

 and the result would probably be, the town or city it was 

 held in would have enough in the convention to rule it, and 

 that luck)' place would make the standard for this whole 

 country. I admit that the standard is faulty, but for all 

 that I do not go in for jumping out of the frying-pan into 

 the fire. We never shall see a perfect standard ; but if we 

 could, some one would howl then, as there is such a variety 

 of opinions in this free country, and plenty of men who, 

 when they do not have their say, call it all wrong. These 

 facts show that we need a standard, and one with fixed tech- 

 nical rules (which he complains of), so that breeders may 

 know just what they must breed for to compete at the 

 shows. He complains because Plymouth Rocks were put in 

 the last standard. They are in the 1871 standard, "which 

 needed no revision," he thinks. The fact is, it is all 

 wrangle ! wrangle ! ! wrangle ! ! ! C. A. Pitkin. 



Habtfokd, Conn. 



