7 he Illustrated Book of Foul, try. 
250 
his account in contradiction to Mr. Cornish and Dr. Bennett respecting the same fowls, as we had 
said he did, and that his statements to the contrary are untruthful. We also learn a little about 
the true value of his evidence, but we must now examine that point more directly. He avers that 
he “fought” the “Brahma nonsense ” as having no foundation, and because he “always objected to 
the needless multiplication of names.” We select now just one example of the many confessions 
in “The Hen Fever.” A gentleman, he says, wrote him in these words — 
I have read much on this subject of poultry, and I want to begin right, you perceive. I have made up my mind that there are 
not so many varieties of fowls extant as many breeders describe. I am satisfied that these domestic birds hail originally from China, 
and that all of them are of one blood. What is your opinion ? 
Write me your views, please, and let me know if you can furnish me with what I seel:, upon honour, bearing in mind that I am 
ready to pay your price, whatever it may be, but that I want only pure-blooded stock. — pp. 274, 275. 
And here is his own account of the sequel : — 
I informed my correspondent that I agreed with him in the ideas he had advanced precisely (I usually did agree with such 
gentlemen), and I entertained no doubt that he was entirely correct in his views as to the origin of domestic fowls, of which he 
evidently knew so much. (This helped me amazingly.) I pointed out to him the distinction that existed (without a difference) 
between a “Shanghae” and a “ Cochin China,” and finally concluded my learned and ««selfish appeal by hinting (barely hinting) 
to him that I felt certain he was the best judge of the facts in the case, and L would only suggest that, so far as my experience went, 
there were in reality but ten varieties of pure- bred fowls known to ornithologists (I was one of this latter class), and that these ten 
varieties were the Cochins , the White, Grey, Dominique, Buff, Yellow, Red, Brown, Bronze, and Black Shatighais — and these 
were the only kinds / ever bred. 
I sent this anxious purchaser sixty chickens, at ten dollars each (cheap enough, to be sure), in accordance with his directions, 
and he was delighted with them. I do not now entertain a shadow of doubt that every one of those ten “different varieties” was 
bred from white hens and a black cock, one of the ordinary “Shanghai” tribe. — p. 278. 
There is plenty more of the same sort, and really the man who wrote this might have 
swallowed the Brahma — name and all — and admitted eleven “ pure breeds.” Passing this point, 
however, we next deal very briefly with Mr. Burnham’s arguments and objections in reply to the 
Cornish story, and to various particulars given by us in former publications. 
First of all, he charges that we have “studiously ignored” a report of the Boston Poultry 
Show of 1852, in which the “committee” spoke of unnecessary “names,” and said, concerning 
these birds, that “ the majority of the committee have no idea that Brahmapootra is their correct 
title.” In “The China Fowl” (p. 75) he writes of this report as follows : — 
Dr. Wight [the chairman of the committee] was one of the oldest importers then known in America, and a very careful, 
conscientious man. He then bred no Grey fowls of any description. He could have had no possible object, save to do justice to 
all parties, in this report ; and his [!] language on this occasion was not only forcible and clear, but it was truthful, just, and 
reasonable, as well as unequivocal. 
He adds in a letter, dated July 2, 1874, that “not until the year 1852 (in September) had the 
proper name of this fine stocic been called in question. It was rightfully ‘Shanghae.’ But from and 
after this show began the contest that resulted in naming this much-maligned race ‘Brahmas.’” We 
may state that when we “ ignored ” that report we were not aware of it, not having then a copy 
of “ The Hen Fever,” in which it has been preserved to posterity. Now we have that remarkable 
publication, however, we find Burnham “ studiously ignores ” the fact that he wrote that report. 
We ask our readers to compare the following with the above intimation that the report was 
written by Dr. Wight : — 
I was chosen by somebody as one of the judges .... and my colleagues on this committee were Dr. J. C. Bennett and 
Messrs. Andrews, Balch, and Fussell. On the morning of the opening of this show the names of the judges were first announced 
to the contributors. Immediately there followed a “ hullabaloo.” . . . One prominent member announced publicly that the 
selection of the judges was an infamous imposition; .... moreover, that it had all “been contrived by that d d 
Burnham, who would rob a churchyard, or steal the cents off the eyes of his dead uncle, any time, for the price of a 
hen.” — p. 1 19. 
But the same power which had formed the committee of judges also provided that they must not be competitors. I was 
satisfied, however, because I saw that the framing of the report of this show would fall to my lot again. . . . Those who are 
acquainted with me know that I am constitutionally of a calm, retiring, meek, religious turn of mind. I “ love my neighbour (if he 
doesn’t permit his hens to get into my garden) as myself,” and “if a man smite me upon one cheek, I turn to him the other also” 
immediately, if not sooner. [We quote these words rather unwillingly, but they are necessary in their way.] I never retaliate upon 
an enemy or an opponent — until I make sure that L have him where the hair is short. ... I permitted the hen-men to gas to 
their heart’s content. When they got through .... I informed them that the “committee” had unanimously left to my 
charge the writing of the report of that exhibition. — nn. 12T. T22. 
