FANCIERS 
JOURNAL 
AND 
POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
VOL... L: 
PHILADELPHIA, APRIL 238, 1874. 
No witts 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
CHURCHMAN, SWEET, ET AL. vs. HALSTED. 
“HEAR ALL SIDES AND THEN DECIDE.”’ 
[ We do not wish to be understood as indorsing all that 
our correspondents may have to say and do not hold our- 
selves responsible for their opinions. 
By a vote of the Convention, we were requested to publish 
its report in which the account of the expulsion of our cor- 
respondent appears, and as he was not heard before the Con- 
vention, we cheerfully grant him the use of our columns for 
that purpose, which are open for the free discussion of all 
subjects pertaining to the interests of fanciers.—ED. ] 
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs from malice 
and jealousy against the defendant, upon a trumped-up 
charge, in which the case was tried without any notice 
whatever being given to defendant; without any copy of 
complaint being served upon defendant, as is required by 
law; in fact, without any knowledge whatever on the part 
of the defendant of any complaint or action against him. 
The case was tried without judge, jury, or witnesses, and 
decided entirely upon the false testimony of the complain- 
ants; the defendant being tried, found guilty, and sentenced 
without a hearing, and without any knowledge of any 
action against him. The cause of action was an asswmed 
one; one of which, Aad the defendant been guilty, it would 
have been impossible for the complainants to take legal cog- 
nizance of: First, because the laws (Constitution and By- 
Laws) recognize no such offence and prescribe no punish- 
ment; second, because the defendant being a delegate, 
action must be taken against the Society he represents, and 
not against the individual; and third, because the assumed 
offence was committed (if committed at all) before the 
defendant became a member of the Association—therefore, 
had there been any by-laws to govern action in such cases, 
he was not amenable to them. The whole case is analogous 
to the star-chamber inquisitorial cases which hold so in- 
famous a place in history. 
I would willingly leave this case with the above record, 
but the great number of letters, as well as personal inquiries 
for my statement of the case, warrant me in giving publicity 
to some facts which both the above-mentioned ‘‘ complain- 
ants’’ repressed. 
If my readers will refer to the Poultry World for Jan- 
uary, 1874, page 7, they will find an article.headed ‘ Repre- 
sentation of State Societies at Buffalo.’ This article origi- 
nated with me, and was sent by me to H. H. Stoddard, after 
consultation with him at the Hartford show, to be mailed in 
the ferm of a printed slip to all our prominent poultry 
breeders. Five days after this slip was disseminated the 
President of the American Poultry Association sent out an 
invitation to the State Societies to send delegates to the 
~Convention. This was on or about January Ist, two weeks 
before the proposed meeting. 

On the same page of the Poultry World for January, the 
reader will find another article, headed ‘‘ The Standard,” 
and signed ‘‘Veteran.’’ This also was written by me. The 
fears I then and there expressed have since been proved to 
be well founded. My only regret in regard to the article is 
that I made its application so general. This (as did the 
former article) brought out a verbose and bombastic reply, 
immediately upon the opening of the Convention, from both 
the above-mentioned parties, and from no one else, proving, 
as Mr. Stoddard himself remarked to me, that ‘‘ both shots 
struck home.’ Some time during the Convention Mr. Stod- 
dard was induced to break faith with me and disclose who 
wrote the obnoxious articles. It was doubtless a case of 
“ Tickle me, Toney, tickle me, do; you tickle me and I'll tickle 
you.’ And then commenced the plotting which terminated 
with the infamous resolution passed at Boston on February 
5th. Unfortunately (or probably fortunately, as the end is 
not yet) I was obliged to leave the Convention at the close 
of the second day, being called home by telegram, on 
account of sickness in my family. 
These honorable and high-toned complainants speedily took 
advantage of my absence. First they circulated the report 
that I had come to the Convention to copyright the doings 
of the meeting for my own personal benefit. Knowing 
that I had at one time owned the copyright of ‘The 
American Standard of Excellence,’ and supposing that I s¢ilJ 
owned it, and knowing also that by this Convention they 
were appropriating the individual property of the owner of 
that copyright, they doubtless felt ‘‘ uneasy in their shoes.’ 
A month or more before the meeting the President of the 
Association had authorized a party to try and buy my copy- 
right, but, as I had already sold it to another party, I could 
not treat with him. 
After I left they said, ‘See how quickly he left after we 
passed the resolution prohibiting any minutes being taken 
except by the Secretary of the Association. He had no 
news from home; that was only a sham.’’ When I received 
the telegram in question I was sitting at a table, writing up 
my report as chairman of the Committee on Creveceurs, 
&e. Mr. George W. White, I think it was, was sitting 
opposite, The messenger handed the telegram to him, and 
he passed it across tome. I have no doubt but Mr. White 
will certify to the correctness of this statement. 
The next move was the Willis affair, which I have 
already answered in my protest to the Association. There 
is, however, something yet in this matter which the public 
dees not know, and which I propose to ventilate. The 
members of the Association were told (by the same parties) 
that if any proofs were needed of my culpability in the 
affair, the register of the Bloomer House bore witness of my 
guilt; that I had there entered the names of Mr. Estes, Mr. 
Willis, and myself, and that alone was enough to convict 
me. Mr. Churchman .cannot plead ignorance of Mr. 
Wade’s handwriting; and Mr. Wade will certify that he 
