372 



FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



in good type and in very neat shape by W. H. Lockwood, 

 of Hartford, Conn., and was adopted by the Connecticut 

 State Poultry Society. This was really a National standard, 

 and was looked upon with few exceptions as authority 

 by all the breeders of the country. It was not quite perfect 

 and not quite up to the times, but much better in many 

 respects than the one issued at Buffalo. 



Another object of this society is to discuss all matters of 

 a national character regarding poultry interests. This can 

 be done and is done in our local societies. For this purpose 

 one of the best and most enterprising methods has been in- 

 augurated by the Connecticut State Poultry Society. 



They also propose to advise and assist all the poultry so- 

 cieties of the country in the selection of their judges " when 

 requested," or when they are reduced to that condition in 

 which they shall be unable or unfit for such a duty. 



But what they principally aim at is contained in the latter 

 part of this same article. Here is the pith and marrow of 

 all their aims — to secure the " entire co-operation of the 

 various poultry societies of the country for fixing the time 

 of the various local exhibitions, and all rules pertaining 

 thereto, the appointment of judges, and methods of judging." 

 Not a very inconsiderable stretch of power. And how do 

 they propose to accomplish this vast scheme? Through 

 those delegates from such local societies as shall conform to 

 Section 2 of Article III. 



Now, I will venture to say, that if the various societies that 

 have sent delegates to Buffalo, had calmly considered the 

 matter in all its bearings, they never would have committed 

 such an egregious error as to place themselves so completely 

 in the power and control of any other organization. In 

 expressing my views so plainly I hope I shall not be con- 

 sidered personal, or that I desire to impugn the motives of 

 any member of the American Poultry Association. For 

 each and all its members I entertain the highest regard. I 

 am discussing the effects of their Constitution over the other 

 societies who have placed themselves under its shadow, and 

 whether the standard they have- promulgated has any of the 

 qualities of a national character. I do not charge upon the 

 association any abuse of the tremendous power it wields, but 

 am merely pointing out the dangers if it should feel disposed 

 to assert its authority in an arbitrary manner. 



If the President in his opening address had spoken more 

 fully of the positive advantages of such a central organization, 

 and had refrained from all allusion to its negative qualities, 

 we should not possibly have heard the mutterings of " envy, 

 hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness." It seems to me 

 whoever the party or parties may be that could deliberately 

 accuse the members of this association of forming "a clique 

 or ring," or that they had any design to promote their own 

 personal ends to the injury of others could have had but a 

 very slight-acquaintance with their fairness of character and 

 standing for integrity. However, I think that the emphatic 

 language of the President, that " never was there such a pre- 

 posterous idea entertained by any human mind that God Al- 

 mighty gifted with the power of thought and reason," should 

 have forever quieted their fears. But what surprised me more 

 than anything else was the statement of the .President that 

 the United States Congress had recognized the American 

 Poultry Association as a national institution, and that this 

 august body should have shown such slight discernment, 

 and traveled so far out of its own sphere of politics to enter 

 into the domain of Chickendom. If the inflation bill had 

 been before them at that time, I should have thought that 

 they were in quest of the goose that laid the golden egg. 



Isaac Van Winkle. 



PoJl T i^y DEp^TMEflT- 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



THE "BRAHMA" FOWL-WRIGHT AGAINST 

 BURNHAM. 



BY GEO P. BURNHAM. 



I rarely trouble myself with noticing anonymous writers 

 on poultry. Tour correspondent, " F. P. W.," pays his 

 respects to me, however, by quoting a long extract from 

 Wright's Illustrated Book ; the author having in that work 

 launched this singularly baseless assault at me (for his own 

 reasons), and I thus feel called on to reply to Mr. Wright, 

 whom I have believed to be a gentleman, as I know he is 

 very clever with his pen, ordinarily, and who is not afraid 

 to affix his proper name to what he writes. 



Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for your timely remarks in 

 the last number of the Fanciers' Journal, I proceed at once 

 to the matter in hand. If this rejoinder to that article 

 (now penned in entire good nature) does not satisfy both 

 " F. P. W.," and Mr. Lewis Wright, that Mr. G. P. Burn- 

 ham understands this "Brahma" question (so far as he is 

 concerned), I can only say those two gentlemen are very 

 hard to please. 



" F. P. W." takes exception to one of my " Reminiscen- 

 ces," published in your columns, on naming the " Brahma " 

 fowl, and quotes Wright's Book of Poultry, pp. 243 and 

 244, without giving Mr. Cornish's letter, upon which Mr. 

 Wright's remarks there are based, but which you furnish in 

 your late comments, in which letter of Cornish's not one 

 word is said about Mr. Burnham or his fowls — first or last. 

 Mr. Cornish does not mention my name in said letter, and 

 never did, that I know of. Mr. Wright and " F. P W." 

 both ought to have known this. Why, then, in connection 

 with the Cornish letter, pick up Mr. Burnham ? Why not 

 Mr. Wade, or Deacon Grant, or Timothy Tinker as appro- 

 priately ? 



Neither " F. R. W." in his exceptions, or Mr. Wright in 

 his book, touch the main question at issue in this contro- 

 versy, strange to say — and that is, as to the time when, and 

 the mode in which, this name " Brahma-Pootra," or 

 " Brahma" came about, and my aversion to it, and I will 

 therefore explain. 



Imprimis — you will observe that / (Mr. Burnham) never 

 laid any claim to this " Brahma-Pootra " misnomer. I 

 did not make this name. I then called my fowls " Gray 

 Sbanghais_" — never by any other name, and simply for the 

 good reason that Dr. Kerr, who sent me my first pair from 

 Philadelphia, September 3d, 1849, in his letter said: 

 " Though they are called ' Chittagongs' (precisely as Mr. 

 Cornish called his at first), they came into Pennsylvania 



