306 



FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



gether offensive, especially through the mandatory dictum 

 embodied in its badly framed " instructions to judges." 



Second. Said "instructions" cannot be made practicable 

 or useful, since their subjugative and imperative wording 

 must inevitably have the effect of preventing any indepen- 

 dent, competent, honorable man, from accepting the always- 

 thankless post of a judge at our shows, under the compulsory 

 rules thus prescribed to control his own opinion. 



Third. In my judgment, no such gratuitous manacles 

 should be provided for fair honest judges ; and I am not 

 ready to admit that any "association" or- set of men, 

 through their simple ipse dixit, have the right to impose 

 such regulations either upon Show judges, or any other 

 state, county, or town association. 



Fourth. I am convinced, through numerous adverse let- 

 ters latterly received, and by free oral communication with 

 scores of American fanciers, that this work, in its present 

 highly objectionable form, can never be adopted to any 

 extent by poultry societies in this country as a standard, 

 and that it is for this reason comparatively worthless for its 

 intended purpose as a rule. 



Fifth. The standard, as published, was evidently made 

 up in too hurried a manner at the best, and, though the 

 intents of its framers may have been good, it fails in details, 

 in many respects, to meet the needs and the views of the 

 American poultry fraternity generally, who find this but a 

 rehash of former ignored similar works. 



Sixth. I believe it will be condemned likewise on ac- 

 count of its incompleteness, its apparent partiality, its 

 palpable omissions, and in several instances (as 1 look at it), 

 the parodoxical nonsense of its stated requirements and 

 declarations as to " disqualifications " in certain breeds. 



Seventh. In this connection, I cite for example the bald 

 inconsistency in this standard, regarding the prize requi- 

 sites for " Brahma " fowls. The Light Brahmas must have 

 "legs strong, and well feathered to tips of outer toes." .... 

 The Dark Brahmas must have "legs strong, well feathered 

 outside, to the ends of outer and middle toes." In points, 

 symmetry counts ten in the Light Brahmas, and the same 

 quality in the Dark Brahmas counts fifteen, according to 

 this standard. Why should this difference in the same qual- 

 ification be thus rated, and why should there be required 

 this difference of " feathering on the toes," upon two colors 

 of the same birds ? Can anything be sillier than these two 

 assumptions ? 



In the " Game Bantam " list, on page 32, but 95 points 

 (instead of 100) are set down for judges to " strictly adhere 

 to " in deciding upon this class. As to the " Cochins " (see 

 page 16, in the list of qualifications), this standard declares 

 " vulture hocks objectionable, but not a disqualification." 

 On pages 18, 20, 21, same chapter, in the list of disqualifica- 

 tions for Partridge, White, Buff, and Black Cochins in each 

 variety, your standard declares separately, " vulture hocks 

 are particularly objectionable." What are we to understand 

 by these fiat contradictions, uttered in the same breath ; and 

 how are judges under your positive instructions to " adhere 

 strictly to your rules " on page 3 and i, to decide this point? 



Eighth. In the case of " Houdans," your new standard 

 requires [vide page 67), that " the toes shall be five in num- 

 ber, the fifth claw turned upward;" and "the absence of 

 the fifth toe is a disqualification." Now it is notorious that 

 the fifth toe belongs rightfully only to the Dorking fpwl, 

 (originally), and also that seven out of ten of our best Hou 



dan breeders recognize only four toes for this variety, in its 

 French purity. 



Ninth. In the classification of " Games," more than half 

 a dozen known established varieties are omitted in the new 

 lists entirely — as the Irish Grays, the Shawl Games, the 

 Spangled, Birchin Duck, Blues, Bed Duns, Brass Back, 

 Blue Beds, etc., no one of which varieties do I find alluded 

 to, even in this " revised " new standard ; but all of which 

 are largely bred in America, by such fanciers as Van Win- 

 kle, N. J. ; Col. Meacham, Mass. ; Bestor, Conn. ; Bicknell, 

 N. Y. ; Hancock, Mass., and others. 



Tenth. No mention is made in this work of several other 

 distinct, well known, and long bred varieties of fowls, which 

 are far more familiar to Eastern breeders, than are those 

 last named — and the query is often put, upon examining 

 this "American standard" — How are we to get our birds 

 into future shows? To wit — the " Black Javas," the"Guil- 

 derlands," the " Bolton Grays," the Marsh, the Forbes, the 

 Bailies' Shanghais, etc. Why are all these varieties which 

 we have bred for years and years, thus left out in the cold ? 



The formal presentation of these ten cogent reasons is 

 made without argument, and simply in the shape of facts. 

 I deem them, Mr. President, of sufficient consequence to 

 arrest the attention of yourself, and that of your official 

 associates, and to warrant your society in attempting a com- 

 plete correction of the errors herein complained of. 



I desire that this communication may be received in the 

 spirit in which it is written; but I submit, in view of the 

 premises, that this new American Standard of Excellence, 

 as revised under the auspices of the American Poultry Asso- 

 ciation at Buffalo, is not what the poultry fanciers and our 

 breeders in this country want — what they need — what they 

 expected — and whatthey are bound to have — sooner or 

 later ; and that is an improvement upon all former abortive 

 and ill-planned attempts in this direction. 



I could urge upon your consideration, further, the fact that 

 your new standard is not put forth at a popular price — one 

 dollar being at least eight times the cost of this pamphlet. 

 I could point out what I deem grave mistakes in your 

 admission of known cross-bred fowls in this standard's lists, 

 as recognized varieties. I could reiterate remarks that are 

 oft repeated among New England breeders, to the effect that 

 all these faults of omission and commission point indubita- 

 bly to a purpose, on the part of a few managers, at the 

 expense of the many poultry men in this country, but I 

 forbear to enlarge for the present. 



As I have publicly suggested, I repeat it — the fanciers 

 and breeders of America demand "a new deal" in this 

 standard matter. Will it be agreeable to you and your 

 associates to call another Convention of all interested in this 

 subject, at a conveniently early day, and at a central place, 

 where we may come together en masse, and in open meeting 

 discuss and vote upon this subject of & final revision of the 

 American standard, where all parties may have the oppor- 

 tunity to hear and be heard, without being compelled to 

 pay three dollars for the privilege ? 



Through such means, the standard that we all want, and 

 need, may be properly and appropriately arranged, and we 

 may thus get, in my opinion, a reliable work, which every 

 fancier in America will thankfully accept as authority, and 

 which every Society will immediately adopt as a useful, prac- 

 tical, applicable, and acceptable "American Standard of 

 Excellence." I am respectfully yours, 



Melkose, Mass., May, 1874. Geo. P. Btjknham. 



