Dr. Bennett and Mr. Cornish. 
253 
But John Bennetc is in his grave. He was my intimate 
friend ior more than twenty-five years. He never wrote or 
uttered one offensive word to or of me or mine, to my know- 
ledge. He possessed first-class natural talents, was liberally 
educated, and proved himself a genial, companionable man, 
though he was a sharp competitor in the chicken fancy, and 
oftentimes eccentric, reckless, and erratic in his business manage- 
ment. But I have nothing to offer derogatory to him ; and his 
memory will hereafter be no farther criticised by my pen. Were 
he alive to-day, he would cordially indorse what I have now 
stated — as I have the means of knowing. And here let him 
rest. — p. 162. 
I have no doubt that Mr. Cornish — who is a very respectable 
and veracious gentleman — believed what Mr. Chamberlin told 
him “the sailor reported” to Mr. Chamberlin, as having come 
“from the New York man, who knew nothing of the origin of 
the light Gray fowls ” thus “found ” there. And Mr. Chamber- 
lin, also, might have believed what this sailor said. The sailor 
probably believed what the man in New York (if there were any 
such man) said — to wit, that he “ knew nothing of their origin,” 
&c. And, though these New York parties are described by Mr. 
Cornish as being “all very obscure men,” it may be that “the 
man in New York, whose name he has not got,” believed the 
story he repeated to the sailor, about what the other sailors told 
him regarding these fowls coming there “in the Indian ships,” 
&c. But I don't. That is all the difference there is, or ever 
has been, between the theory of Mr. Cornish and Wright, and 
the facts that I have herein related. — p. 97. 
Dr. John C. Bennett coined this sailor’s yarn originally, and 
the others tacitly agreed to it. The fowls were from my yards, 
or out of my stock. And Bennett never denied this in America 
or England, for he couldn’t, had he wished to do so, while 1 
lived ; and he knew this fact as / did, which accounts for the 
non-mention of me in all those days ! — p. 114. 
As to the first letter signed by Virgil Cornish, dated March 2, 
1852, I will add here that I am ready to take oath that Dr. 
John C. Bennett came to my house and passed the night there, 
a few months previously to the date of that document, when he 
exhibited to me and to members of my family his ready prepared 
account of what was “shortly to be forthcoming as the true 
history of the origin and importation of the Brahmapootra fowls, 
from India,” which precious document (as nearly as I can now 
recollect it), in his handwriting, was almost word for word this 
very letter , published in 1852 as Mr. Cornish’s ! During the 
doctor’s visit to me that day and night, at Melrose, he informed 
me that this very statement was to be published, and that it 
would be approved by Mr. Cornish and Mr. Hatch of Con- 
necticut.- — p. 157. 
Dr. John C. Bennett, himself, prepared this sailor-story in 
the main, originally ; he alone invented the name of “ Brahma- 
pootra ” for the Gray-Shanghae fowls ; he also originated the 
title of the “ pea-comb.” The other parties in the Brahmapootra 
interest in 1852-53 joined the doctor in this story and the decep- 
tion about the “ importation of these fowls from India ” — under 
his lead — and subsequently told his tale so many times, that some 
of them (not all !) came at last to believe in its truth. — p. 162. 
All that is necessary here is to say that Burnham never dared to say of Dr. Bennett what he 
here says of him, while he lived. He fought him ; he ridiculed him ; but he never dared at the 
lime to accuse him or Cornish of forgery ; and that charge is now made by a man who can in the 
teeth of it say those who put the story forward “no doubt believed it,” and that one is a “veracious” 
and “very worthy man.” He has also been proved by numerous citations to be utterly unreliable 
in other statements he has made, and which have been likewise quoted, to the effect that he never had 
difference or dispute with either Dr. Bennett or Mr. Cornish. The following letters — one from each 
— which were published at the time , and the statements in neither of which did Burnham dare to 
deny, will show still more the character of that statement, and clear up some other points : — 
Mr. Miner: — In the New England Cultivator for June, is an article on “Grey Shanghae Fowls,” from the pen of 
George P. Burnham, Esq., confounding that breed with the Brahma Pootras, and as he has used my name most liberally, I 
beg leave to make a short reply. Mr. Burnham says: “Mr. Burnham was the first to introduce this large breed of grey fowls 
into Massachusetts in 18/19 and 1850. [Mr. B. is incog, editor, and writes of himself as of another person. — Ed., Northern 
Farmer .] They were called Chittagongs at that time.” Now, the Chittagongs to which Mr. Burnham refers, are grey 
Chittagongs ; I had some of the same stock. They were purchased of Dr. Kerr by Mr. Burnham and myself at the same 
time. Mr. Burnham admits that these fowls are Chittagongs, and so do I. They were, and now are, of a grey owl-colour ; not 
■white , with black tails and pencilled ruck-hackles, like the Brahma Pootras. Mr. Burnham’s pair of Chittagongs, which he pretends 
are similar to Brahma Pootras, passed into the hands of Mr. G. W. George, of Haverhill, Mass. On the 28th of June, Mr. 
George visited Great Falls to see my Brahma Pootras. He was accompanied by Mr. \V. P. Neff, of Cincinnati, Ohio. I 
requested Mr. George to state in the presence of Mr. Neff, whether Mr. Burnham’s Chittagongs, which he owned, resembled 
my Brahma Pootras. lie replied, “Not in the least. The Chittagongs that I had of Mr. Burnham are owl-coloured, or grey, 
more like a Dominique fowl.” Now, Mr. Burnham’s “grey Chittagongs” have turned out to be “grey Shanghaes,” for he 
says they are “perfectly identical!” If this is true, there is nc such thing as Chittagong fowls ! ! They are all grey Shanghaes 
now ! That Mr. Burnham has some grey Shanghaes, I am not disposed to contradict, but that they are the original grey 
Chittagongs, I deny. But if they were the same, that circumstance would have nothing to do with their being Brahma Pootras, 
because neither of these breeds resemble the Brahma Footras in the least. That Mr. Burnham had no fowls in 1849 and 1850, 
resembling the Brahma Pootras in the least, I know to a certainly , and in confirmation of this statement I append a letter from 
Virgil Cornish, Esq., of Conn. J. C. Bennett. 
Sept. 1852. 
, July 19th, 1852. 
Dk T. C. Bennett: — Dear Sir. — A few weeks ago I received the Northern Farmer, and noticed your article on the 
Brahma Pootra fowls, with quotations from my letter to you, which are all correct. I have shown the article to Mr. Chamberlain, 
and he says that the description of the origin of these fowls, as there given by you, is perfectly correct. You have probably 
noticed the article in the New England Cultivator for June, under the head of “ Grey Shanghaes,” in which the author claims 
that the Brahma Pootras are identical with that breed, &c., telling us that Mr. Burnham knows all about them, and had them in 
iS in and 1850 &c. Now I happened to meet Mr. Burnham at the Poultry Fair in 1850, when he told me, after viewing a few 
voun<r specimens of Brahma Pootras shown at that time, that he had timer seen anything like them before, and Mr. Morse [Mr. 
Morse was Secretary of the New England Poultry Society] also said the same, and denied that they were grey Chittagongs ; and 
observed that he had never before seen the pure Brahma Pootras. Both gentlemen made great efforts to obtain a promise of 
some of the fowls but failed. Now, I do not wish to say that the assertion in the Cultivator that Mr. B. had the Brahma 
Pootius in 1849, is false, but it looks very much as though there was, at least, a great mistake somewhere. Virgil Cornish. 
W 
