FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



339 



that I have no shadow of personal feeling in it. I have no 

 motive of private interest therein, and I totally disclaim 

 any design to offend any individual anywhere in my stric- 

 tures. 



Either this standard is a good one, such as it ought to be, 

 or it is not. I have given my reasons why I think it is not 

 what we need, and what we all looked for, at the hands of 

 the undoubtedly well-meaning gentlemen who framed it. 

 Am I alone in this opinion? Am I in the minority even 

 upon this question ? Have my objections been answered ? 

 Can this work (as it now stands) be defended fairly by any- 

 body ? I think not. And so think hundreds of the poultry 

 men and fanciers of America, as I know. 



So, asking at the hands of the friends of the standard, 

 the same courteous treatment toward me that I would hon- 

 estly extend toward them in this matter, I crave space in 

 your columns to say that I have no disposition to criticise or 

 contend with the opinions of any individual gentleman upon 

 this complicated question ; and I trust that all who have any- 

 thing to present in favor of this book, may give their 

 judgment strictly upon the merits of the standard, without 

 attempting to drag me or any other writer into a war of 

 words through personal attacks, which can never move me 

 to retaliate in kind, since it is not my style to slop over, or 

 go into hysterics in this business. 



I have seen nothing, as yet, that answers the objections 

 (and the reasons therefore), published in your columns and 

 elsewhere, latterly, from my pen, to wit: I have said the 

 price of the standard is eight times too high ; that the work 

 was hurried out unduly ; that it contained paradoxical in- 

 consistencies ; that its lists omitted to mention several 

 known varieties bred all over the country ; that cross-bred 

 fowls are therein " recognized " as breeds ; that it is inaccu- 

 rate in its estimates of "points;" that it requires the two 

 kinds of Brahmas to be feathered differently upon their feet; 

 that it is unwieldy and verbose in its phraseology ; that it 

 contains very many typographical errors for which there 

 is no excuse ; that its "Instructions to judges" are gratui- 

 tous and dictatorial ; that judges could not follow these 

 directions implicitly, as they are ordered to do, in conse- 

 quence of the mistakes and inaccuracies in the book— and 

 that, in my opinion, in its present incomplete and muddled 

 shape, State and county societies in the United States can- 

 not use it to advantage, and therefore they will not adopt it 

 until it is again revised and corrected by a full open meet- 

 ing of all parties interested. Now, what is there in these 

 general allegations to offend Mr. D, Mr. E, or Mr. F? 



It is an old adage, " that only the wounded bird flutters." 

 I hope that nobody concerned is so absolutely timber-toed 

 as to apply my criticisms to himself individually ; and I 

 really do not see how my opinions can be thus construed. 

 But when these objections of mine are fairly replied to, in 

 the courteous and conscientious spirit which animated me 

 in suggesting them, by any interested or disinterested fan- 

 cier, no one can be more ready than I shall be to "stand 

 corrected" if I am wrong. But I sincerely believe that not 

 one of these propositions can be answered in favor of this 

 standard. This' is simply my honest opinion. 



Melrose, May 9, 1874. 



BOP" A tombstone at Columbia, Tenn., has this inscrip- 

 tion : " Escaped the bullets of the enemy to be assassinated 

 by a cowardly pup — a kind husband and an affectionate 

 father." 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



OBJECTIONS TO THE STANDARD. 



I see by the various criticisms in the poultry papers of the 

 country, that the standard, as adopted at the Buffalo and 

 Boston meetings of the American Poultry Association, does 

 not give universal satisfaction, and I also notice that the 

 Secretary of said Association sends out a general invitation 

 to all interested persons to send at once " any omission or 

 error " that they may discover in the " first edition." Well, 

 now, is not this rather strange proceeding ? It is simply 

 saying that the standard so many have already purchased 

 at what they consider an exorbitant price ($1.00) is good 

 for nothing, and a little way farther on the said Secretary 

 says that said errors may be corrected in "the second 

 edition," and so, in a little while, we are to have a chance 

 to pay another dollar or perhaps more for said " second 

 edition." 



Now, if there is to be more of the standard printed, as 

 represented, of course there must be a revision of the present 

 at least, and in order that it may be truly American, as some 

 say it is not in its present shape and manner of adoption, 

 I would suggest that it be done in the usual American style, 

 that is by electing delegates to a general convention to be 

 held at some proper place at an early day, and 1 would say 

 that such a convention should be elected by the various state 

 societies, and consist of 5 or 7 delegates from each state 

 having a society, and of a less number from any state which 

 has not a state society, provided that said state contain in- 

 terested persons enough to call a meeting and elect 1 or 3 

 delegates to said convention, and then each state could be 

 represented by its best men, and would be under obligation 

 to accept such a standard as said convention should see fit 

 to issue. I can see no reason why such a meeting could not 

 be very easily called and give universal satisfaction, be en- 

 tirely and strictly confined to the delegates, they and they 

 only voting or taking part in the doings of said meeting ; 

 but not with closed doors, nor any of the $3 admission fee, 

 but each state society to pay its share of the expenses. 



Now, I do not propose to set myself up as a critic, but, 

 as others have, I am inclined to say that I think from 

 what I have read that a revision of the new standard is 

 absolutely necessary. Most everybody is dissatisfied with it. 

 I see by the Poultry Exchange, No. 18, that the Bucks 

 County Poultry Association has voted it down, and in the 

 same paper, No. 19, many errors are pointed out, besides so 

 many others at other times and places, and then in the 

 Poultry World for May we have a very funny defence of the 

 standard by our friend I. K. Felch, in which he says, in 

 describing the back, the description closes with " color, 

 milk white." He says: " We could not in so few words 

 express the whole, and the committee wish by it to be un- 

 derstood that any color of white found in the different shades 

 of milk to be admitted and none other. We are well aware 

 that some milk is pearl-white, and that the other extreme 

 borders upon a cream-color, and as they are all found in the 

 different shades of milk, and that they are each and all to 

 be accepted." > 



Well that seems to be a very broad platform, and any- 

 body who cannot fit the standard with feathers on his Light 

 Brahma Cock's back had better give up the chicken busi- 

 ness. But a little farther on in same article friend Felch 

 says that said committee admitted underfeathering bluish- 

 white or white. Now, as skimmed milk is about that color 



