162 FANCIERS’ 
JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

ing is the result: Fifty-eight chickens were hatched, three 
are dead, eleven are yet too young to decide upon their sex; 
of the remaining forty-four every one has turned out exactly 
true to the old man’s theory. This, of course, may be an 
accidental coincidence, but I shall certainly try the experi- 
ment again. J am now trying the same theory upon ducks’ 
eggs.”’ 
But to make the matter more sure we will give the experi- 
ments of Wm. J. Pyle, of West Chester, Pa., who writes: 
‘7 herewith send you my ‘egg mystery,’ and if you will 
follow my instructions closely you will succeed every time. 
Last summer I hatched one hundred and twenty-two chicks 
from eggs selected on this principle, one hundred and nine- 
teen of which were pullets. I always select eggs of medium 
size, believing them to be best for this purpose. I then get 
a large lamp (kerosene), and take an egg in my right hand, 
between the thumb and two forefingers, big end uppermost, 
and hold it as near to the light as possible, then lay the little 
finger of the left band across the middle of the egg. This 
will throw the light in the egg ; then turn it around slowly, 
and you will perceive a dark spot the size of a three-cent 
piece directly in the centre of large end, or on one side, as 
in diagrams Nos, 1, 2, 8, and 4. 
‘CAs I raise poultry for eggs and for market, I of course set 
only eggs like No. 3, with a few of No. 1 to replace the 
cocks of last year. 
‘Tt would be well for an amateur to break a few eggs, 
empty out the contents, and examine the large end where 
the air-cbamber in the different positions as in diagram will 
be distinctly seen.” 
We hope that the fanciers who read the above will try the 
experiment carefully, and report through tHe Fanciers’ 
Journal as soon as satisfied whether the theory is correct or not. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
AMERICAN POULTRY ASSOCIATION. 
J. M. WADE, Esq. 
Dear Str: Yours of the 27th inst. received, containing a 
slip from the Ohio Farmer, in which one F. W. Babcock, of 
Fair Haven, Conn., makes a slanderous attack upon the 
members composing the American Poultry Association. 
Really I do not believe that the article emanated from his 
brain, but that it was instigated by another. From the fact 
-that he was obliged to send the questionable article to an 
agricultural journal in a distant State, where he was not 
known, in order to get it published, will be, beyond a doubt, 
positive evidence to the readers of poultry journals that the 
article would not have been published by them. 
IT look upon it as the most uncalled-for, untruthful, and 
venomous attack upon the strongest, most prosperous, and 
dignified body of men ever assembled together for any 
honorable purpose; also upon the organization, composed, 
as it is, of the masses of fanciers—prominent, solid, and 
active men of the United States and Canada. 
The writer of the. article shows himself to be a weak- 
minded individual, influenced by another, whose mind is 
not only weak, but whose principles would debar him from 
the society of such as are connected with the American 
Poultry Association, : 
The whole article is a distortion of the truth, interspersed 
with—well, to give them no milder terms—lies, and it would 
affect the high moral character and dignity of the Associa- 



tion to take any notice of it whatever, other than to treat it 
with silent contempt. Yours truly, 
W. H. CuurcHMaAn. 
CLAYMONT, DELAWARE, February 28th, 1874. 
For the benefit of those who do not.take the agzicultural 
papers, we republish the letter of Mr. Babcock in full, which 
called out the above answer from Mr. Churchman, President 
of the American Poultry Association : 
THE NEW POULTRY STANDARD. 
It must be apparent to all readers of the Ohio Farmer, 
who are interested in the breeding of fancy poultry, for 
either pleasure or profit, that a great outrage has been per- 
petrated upon them in the revision of the ‘‘ Standard” by 
the so-called American Poultry Association, which met in 
Buffalo, January 14th, and Boston, February 5th. I do mot 
make this charge on my own responsibility alone, but am 
sustained in so doing my many of the leading poultry- 
breeders of America, whose comments upon this outrage I 
shall take the liberty to quote further on. This Association 
has nothing whatever in its organization, method of meeting 
or results, that is worthy of the title American. 
The first American Standard, issued in May, 1871, and 
which has done such noble service in the poultry interest 
everywhere, was adopted in open meeting with free member- 
ship to every man, woman, and child owning or interested 
in poultry, the opinions of all receiving due weight and 
attention; and thus if every one was not heard it was their 
own fault. 
On the other hand, the standard of 1874 has been adopted 
by a select few, with closed doors, an admission fee of three 
dollars being charged, and if unpaid the fancier was excluded. 
This standard aims to represent the particular points bred to 
by ‘*that crowd,’ and all persons not liking it can solace 
themselves as best they may with the old one, which is now 
declared worthless. Will the rank and file of American 
fanciers swallow this pill so nicely prepared for them remains 
to be seen, but it is safe to assume that they will not. In 
this connection I received a letter, a few days since, from an 
American authority on poultry matters who declined to sub- 
mit to any such tax, or to act in such “ air-tight star-chamber 
get-up,’’ and was of course put out. 
That many good men and careful breeders attended this 
meeting, there is no doubt, but many of them will ere long 
realize that there is a ‘wheel within a wheel,’’ and unless 
this whole patched-up standard is revoked at once, the poultry 
interest will be run in a ‘‘ ring’? which would do credit to 
Tweed & Co. Let the mass of our fanciers hold a mass 
meeting at once, and adopt a standard which shall merit the 
broad and meaning title of American. In closing I will 
annex a short extract from the American Rural Home for 
January 31st, and which but faintly expresses the indigna- 
tion that is brewing, and will ere long break around the ears 
of the aristocrats of the ‘“‘American”’ Poultry Association : 
‘‘We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of thought, 
freedom of action, and a free interchange of views on this 
subject of fixing an American standard. No close corpora- 
tion or secret deliberation on a matter that affects all classes 
of breeders will be allowable by American fanciers. Because 
one man breeds a certain class of fowls to his own notion, it 
is no reason why other breeders should be obliged or com- 
pelled to follow out his ideas just because he got them adopted 
by a minority of breeders while in secret session. There is 
nothing right about such proceedings, it is anti-republican 
and anti-democratic in principle, and will not be acknowl- 
edged by the majority of breeders in this country. If there 
is any tinkering of our present standard needed (which we 
admit there is), let it be done with open doors, and in public. 
In this manner the present standard was adopted, ald breeders 
| being invited to participate in the proceedings, and discuss 
the several points of fowls as they were presented.” 
