FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



387 



ciation, and due notice of it was given in the poultry jour- 

 nals. A call appeared in the January number of the 

 Poultry World, signed by nearly two hundred names, many 

 of them among the most prominent poultry breeders in the 

 land, urging a full attendance at the Buffalo Convention, 

 and requesting State and Local Associations to send dele- 

 gates. 



This Convention was arranged for the same time as the 

 Buffalo Poultry Exhibition, the large and attractive pre- 

 mium lists of which were certain to draw exhibitors and 

 visitors from all parts of the country. With all these 

 advantages for securing a good representation, it was con- 

 fidently expected that a large number of earnest, intelligent, 

 and reliable men would be assembled, representing fairly 

 and faithfully the different sections of the country, and the 

 different branches of the poultry interest. Nor was this 

 expectation disappointed. The most prominent and best 

 known breeders of many classes of fowls were there; and if 

 the public trusts these men to raise its fowls, as it certainly 

 does to a large extent, why not trust them to describe them? 

 If this new Convention shall be called by these dissatisfied 

 parties, it would be small indeed, at least in the number of 

 prominent and intelligent breeders ; and those who complain 

 that the other one was run by a ring, would, without doubt, 

 aspire to be the ring-masters of the new one, and would 

 rule or ruin it. Is there any guarantee, from the past record 

 of these men, that they would be more honest and impartial 

 than those who composed the other Convention ? Do they 

 stand fairer before the business world, as capable and reliable 

 men, than Estes, Wade, Williams, Todd, Warren, Church- 

 man, Felch, Atwood, and many others, who were at Bufialo ? 

 If such men as those I have mentioned were influenced by 

 self-interest, though I by no means acknowledge that they 

 were, what can you expect from men who, out of petty 

 jealousy, are moved to call a new Convention ? 



Mr. B. charges the Buffalo Convention with undue haste 

 in the revision of the standard. Does he suppose that he 

 can get active business and professional men, such as most 

 of our poultry breeders are, to attend a convention, and 

 remain ten days, or perhaps two or three weeks, engaged in 

 this work? If he has had any experience in conventions, 

 ecclesiastical, political, or any other kind, he well knows 

 how hard it is to keep a considerable body of men together 

 for three or four days for the transaction of the most im- 

 portant business. Quite a number of the delegates to Buffalo 

 were obliged to leave before the Convention closed its labors. 

 But was the action at Buffalo hasty? 



An eminent minister was once asked how long it took 

 him to prepare a famous sermon. He replied: "Twenty 

 years i" It embodied experiences and ideas which he was 

 many years in acquiring. One may often write in an hour 

 what it has required years to learn. If those men had come 

 to Buffalo with little experience, and without any definite 

 ideas as to what changes ought to be made, it might have 

 required months to do work which was efficiently done in a 

 few days. Very many of those men had, in the past, learned 

 from observation and experience wherein the old standard 

 was defective, and they had definite ideas as to what changes 

 ought to be made, and the time which they spent at Buffalo 

 was amply suflicient to make them. 



I have said that Mr. Burnham could not hold his conven- 

 tion together (even if he could once assemble it) longer than 

 the one that was in session at Buffalo ; and he could not 

 appoint committees to report at a future time, as a body 



composed of all the men, women, and children, who wished 

 to talk about fowls, as he proposes, could never be assembled 

 a second time after having been once disbanded. Much 

 time would be required for the "new departure" proposed 

 by your correspondent "W.," and this convention would feel 

 called upon to make some very radical changes in order to 

 justify them before the public in the amount of fault-finding 

 which they have done with the old order of things ; indeed, 

 so radical would the changes probably be, that their work 

 would be rejected by all except the few who had a hand in 

 it, and their personal friends. 



It is objected to the new standard that it was adopted 

 by a "select few, with closed doors, charging three dollars 

 for admission fee, which, if unpaid, excluded those who 

 would otherwise have joined in the debates." — (G. P. B.'s 

 article in No. 16.) 



In an article by A. M. Halsted there is much also to the 

 same effect, and several other correspondents are calling 

 loudly for a free convention. Whether the National Asso- 

 ciation was right in this matter I do not stop to discuss at 

 present, as I shall have something to say of this again, but 

 when this is urged as an objection to the new standard, it is 

 a mere subterfuge, as I have not heard it alleged that any 

 "man, woman, or child," whose opinion would, in any human 

 probability, have been worth a farthing to the Convention, 

 was excluded by this resolution. These fault-finders merely 

 think it a good opportunity to appeal to the public prejudice, 

 and excite a distrust of the men who were engaged in the 

 revision of the standard. 



The great hue and cry which has been raised shows plainty 

 the strength and importance of the National Association 

 better than anything which its friends can say about it. 



Men of business shrewdness do not fight shadows. The 

 Association is large and strong enough to take care of itself, 

 and if any set of men endeavor to use it merely for their 

 own personal advantage, they will be at once set aside, and 

 the management will be committed to other hands. As yet, 

 however, I maintain nothing has been done which will in 

 any way accrue to the special and personal advantage of those 

 engaged in the work of revision, or their friends. I do not 

 believe the officers of the National Association will pay much 

 heed to this clamor, and I feel sure they will not so far yield 

 to it as to call the convention demanded. I think they will 

 go quietly forward, and at their next meeting make such 

 changes as they deem important, and that they will do this 

 from year to year until the standard is satisfactory to them- 

 selves. They cannot hope that they will ever get it to suit 

 everybody. 



What fairness or consistency is there in this whine and 

 snarl from men who did not accept the invitation and call 

 of the Association last winter? Why did not these men, 

 who know so much of poultry now, make known their 

 views through the public journals or otherwise last winter, 

 so that the Convention might have profited by their wis- 

 dom ? I do not assert that this present standard is perfect. 

 I wrote a friendly criticism on the standard on Light 

 Brahmas for the World, which has, however, not yet been 

 published. But I do object to the severe and wholesale 

 denunciation of the standard and the Convention by men 

 who took no interest in it when invited to do so. Let the 

 reading public remember that it is an easy thing to cry 

 " Ring," but let it also be remembered that those who utter 

 the cry have little ground for their suspicions, but only sus- 

 pect better and more honorable men than themselves of 



