FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



307 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



A SENSIBLE PROPOSAL. 



J. M. Wade, Esq. 



Tour Fanciers' Journal, through its contributor, Mr. 

 Burnham, has taken the initiative in a matter of the great- 

 est importance to poultry interests, and I was pleased to see, 

 in a recent number of your admirable weekly, his ideas of 

 the new National American Standard and its projectors. 

 Mr. Burnham is a veteran in poultry breeding, and his ad- 

 vice on this subject of properly revising our standard is 

 well-timed. If such a convention as he suggests could be 

 held this summer, it would undoubtedly be attended hy our 

 poultry men generally ; and in an open, fair meeting, where 

 all could be heard, a good many new ideas and valuable 

 hints as to what we ought to have in an American standard 

 would be brought out to manifest general advantage. 

 Whatever may be done, one thing is evident, and that is 

 that this last "revision" of the standard is no advance on 

 former efforts of the kind, and cannot answer the purpose 

 or fulfil the expectations of American poulterers. To say 

 nothing of its mistakes, omissions, inconsistencies, and glar- 

 ing contradictions, the rules laid down at its commence- 

 ment, controlling our judges at exhibitions, are strikingly in 

 bad taste, and to my mind altogether superfluous. I hope a 

 new convention will be held, and I trust that such meeting 

 will be fully attended. In this way, I think, we may not 

 only correct the errors of this almost useless work, but man- 

 age to get out a good American standard. C. H. E. 

 Boston, April, 1874. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



MR. SECRETARY RALPH'S CARD. 



Editor Fahciers' Journal. 



Will you allow me a few lines of space in your columns 

 on the subject of the proposed new "standard," to say that 

 the card published in No. 18 of your paper by Edmund S. 

 Kalph, Esq., Secretary of the American Poultry Associa- 

 tion, is very fair and courteous, as well as prompt in 

 response to the published criticisms of the work in question ? 

 But, at the same time, I would like to ask what are we who 

 have bought " the incomplete and erroneous first edition" 

 he alludes to, to do with it ? How, when it is corrected and 

 again ''revised," shall we get the proposed second edition? 

 Must we invest another dollar each for this last attempt ? 

 Will that be final, if arranged by the Executive Committee 

 aforesaid only ? Before printing any more editions of this 

 work any way, I think we had better have the "free and 

 full discussion" he suggests, in open convention somewhere, 

 where all American poultry men can be heard and con- 

 sulted with as to what this "second edition" should con- 

 tain. It is immaterial i«ho calls this convention. If the 

 National Association choose to do so, well and good. But 

 do not let us have any more editions of this work till " the 

 back counties shall have been heard from," as suggested by 

 half a dozen of your correspondents lately. 



Respectfully, Eight. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



OMISSIONS IN THE NEW STANDARD. 



Editor Fanciers' Journal. 



I can't do it — I wish I could — but I am quite "disquali- 

 fied " to put the question so cleverly to the point as your 

 spicy, well-posted, and experienced correspondent, Mr. G. P. 

 Burnham, of Massachusetts, has accomplished it. 



I have read all of this trenchant writer's published books 

 on poultry matters, his funny record of the "history of 

 the hen fever " included ; and what he don't know about 

 fowl raising in America, is not worth knowing. I fancy 

 he writes ably as well as pleasantly, and I peruse his con- 

 tributions to the Fanciers' Journal and elsewhere with great 

 pleasure. In this actively controverted matter of the new 

 Standard of Excellence, among the well known varieties of 

 domestic birds that are not alluded to in the official lists, I 

 am acquainted with three or four distinct breeds, which, it 

 strikes me, ought to find a place in any complete American 

 Standard. There are the "Sumatra Game," the "Domi- 

 nique Game," and the famous "Dun Games;" also, the 

 " Bolton Grays" or " Cradle fowls," these last being better 

 known in many quarters than several more modern breeds, 

 and a beautiful bird they are, altogether — called sometimes 

 Dutch or everlasting layers, from their noted prolificness 

 in this respect. 



It strikes me that the "American Poultry Association " 

 are bound to call a new convention for their own credit. I 

 agree with Mr. Burnham that a convention ought to be 

 called by somebody, and I coincide with you that there does 

 not seem to be need for such call outside of the present ex- 

 isting national society, the officers of which, generally, must 

 have discovered ere this that the new standard they have 

 thrown together so carelessly, is not what was anticipated 

 at their hands, and that it cannot come into use among 

 State poultry societies as it now stands. 



In the first part of this little book, the chapter of " direc- 

 tions to judges " is very objectionable, and to my view is 

 simply impracticable, taken in connection with the contra- 

 dictory particulars that erroneously appear in the body of 

 the standard ; besides this, as several of your writers sug- 

 gest, these directions or positive instructions are quite unnec- 

 essary, and by their dogmatical wording are rendered 

 absolutely nugatory, as well as presumptuous. 



If a new convention be held, I hope it will be fully atten- 

 ded by poultry men from all the States ; and I trust that 

 the next attempts to fix up a good American standard will 

 be more successful in the end. I have so far failed to find a 

 single article in our poultry journals in favor of this one- 

 dollar pamphlet. Has it got no friends ? 



Respectfully yours, 



S. T. Howell. 

 Brooklyn, N. Y. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



THE PROPOSED NEW CONVENTION. 



Tour leading editorial in No. 18 is very judicious in its 

 recommendations as to the calling of another convention, 

 to revise the last revised standard. No one will object to 

 your mode; i.e., that such convention be called by the Amer- 

 ican Poultry Association, whose officers ask for a fair, honest 

 criticism of their doings, etc. 



This is just as it should be. If this society choose to call 

 a new convention, and will make their invitation broad 

 enough to admit all classes of poulti-y men who may be 

 permitted to take part in the deliberations, without being 

 obliged to pay $3 for the chance (unless they choose to 

 donate this sum), everybody will be satisfied with the 

 arrangement, and ought to be so. Such a meeting would 

 be very largely attended, no doubt. Those who could not, 

 or would not attend, must make themselves content with 

 the doings of such a convention ; for, if they absent them- 



