694 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

delphia Fanciers’ Journal, of this week. Awaiting your 
reply, I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
Guo. P. BuRNHAM. 
PS.—I never once, in my twenty-four yeurs’ experience 
with my Gray Shanghuais, ever saw or heard of a buff fowl, 
bred trom my stock, and I don’t believe you ever did, either. 
I have nothing to deal with now as to what you may here- 
after say you meant, in your language; but only with what 
you have plainly suid (written). You have used the terms 
“Cochin,’? and ‘ Brahma,’’ and “Chittagong” im your 
books to suit your fancy, instead of the terms Shanghais, 
Gray Shanyhais, etc., as | used them, in the places where you 
pretend to quote me and others. And in more and one in- 
stunce you have added my name offensively, in parentheses, 
in your extracts (on p. 241, for example) about ‘ pure-bred 
Brahmus,’’ while my name does not appear, in the paragraph 
you quote, originally. Is this pursuing the poultry fancy 
‘‘in a reverent spirit,’”’ ‘in the fear of God?’’ I ask. 
I have but a few remarks to make on this characteristic 
document. The first is, that while so lately asserting that 
he ‘never had had any difference, written or verbal,’’ with 
Cornish or Bennett—nay, knew the one to be ‘a very worthy 
man,” the man here himself affirms that ‘all his life’”’ he 
had ‘fought’? and ‘‘lampooned”’ this ‘Cornish, Cham- 
berlin, Bennett balderdash!’’ Secondly, my charge against 
him always has been that he did so; that he did say the fowls 
in question were Chinese and not Indian; whereas I con- 
tended (and while admitting that, for want of evidence, I 
was probably mistaken in some details, shall make ¢ha¢ much 
as clear as noonday) that the fowls are Indian and not Chi- 
nese. The third is, that it issimply false, and known by him 
to be so, that I ever put phrases into “ his mouth”’ he never 
wrote. He states certain fowls were ‘“‘ Shanghais.’’ These 
birds are now universally called Cochins; and I have stated 
that his contention was that the fowls in question were 
‘“Cochins.’’? But I never said he used the word, or quote him 
as doing so; and in using the word Cochin I simply follow 
Mr. Trgetmeier, who he says is ‘‘ accurate; ”’ nay, more—the 
sentence he chiefly fastens on I have already shown is nvt 
written by me at all, but is simply quoted by me as made 
by Mr. Tegetmeier, and duly credited to that gentleman. 
Different names to the same fowls do not alter the fowls or 
the facts, as he well knows. And lastly, as he also very well 
knows, the very reason of inserting a name (or any other 
word or sentence any where) in brackets in any passage is to 
show, and in the usual way of showing, that such application 
of a passage is made by the editor or author quoting it, and 
not by the writer of the passage itself. I have, however, 
lately given Mr. Burnham’s own statements; let them be 
compared with my own, and with what will follow. 
This letter, however, made me rather curious to find out 
what Mr. Burnham really had been by “nature, education, 
and fortune.’’? Herein England, when a man so emphatically 
claims to be a gentleman, we generally conclude he is what 
is vulgarly termed a cad; and this is especially apt to be the 
case if he uses the Queen’s English in a particularly ‘“strik- 
ing’? manner. I did findin The Northern Farmer of April, 
1855, a statement respecting the birth of Mr. Burnham; but 
I have no proof of its accuracy, and it would be beneath me 
to quote it if I had. Since I do not think Winer was justi- 
fied in dragging such maters—even if true—into the contro- 
versy. But the following statement is interesting, and is 
probably true :— 
When Burnham had arrived at an age when the beard 
begins to grow, we learn that he was a cab-driver, and in that 
business took daily lessons in Billingsgate slang, which we 
observe he uses in all his writings, especially when he is riled. 

I say this is probably true, because I find in the American 
Journal of Agriculture of December, 1853 (a most respect- 
able journal, then edited by Mr. W. S. Ring, a government 
official under President Pierce), the following statement, 
which closely corresponds :— 
The first we hear of this Burnham, he was mounted on a 
cab-box, with a leather thong fastened around his little cap, 
bearing the bright letters CAB; making the air vocal with 
his ‘ Ride up sir! ride up!?’ From this he descended grad- 
ually to the compiling-stool of the New England Cultivator, 
and from this depth he shrieks out his vituperation upon all 
who attenipt to unearth and expose him. Whether he was 
dragged down by the stringent municipal laws, in a conflict 
with his proneness to get more than his fare, we are not 1n- 
formed ; but he brought with him, in his fall, the refined 
tustes, customs, and language of his former profession. 
Now, far be it from me to cast any slur upon what one of 
Mr. Burnham’s irate correspondents calls ‘‘ enny onnest em- 
ploiment.’’ Still the extract does throw a curious light 
upon Mr. Burnham’s personality, and is not what I expected 
after such very tall talk. I do not, however, care to push 
this matter particularly ; I never examined into the question 
of Mr. Burnham’s personal antecedents at all, till this singu- 
lar epistle and its ‘‘ rather steep ’’ claims gave me some faint 
curiosity on the subject; and, except so far as one likes to 
know all one can about any great character, the matter is 
really not important; and a cab-driver may be a most worthy 
man, as no doubt Mr. Burnham was, 
I regard as by far, the most important matter—the mode 
in which Mr. Burnham has dealt with, and objected to, the 
statements of Mr. Cornish and myself; whatever he is or 
has been, so far as his assertions are true or his arguments 
sound, they are entitled to weight; and they must therefore 
be examined, as I have elsewhere done. L. WrieutT. 
[We publish the above at the request of our friend, 
Wright, who justly complains that we allowed Mr. Burn- 
ham a large amount of space in our columns, and now when 
he wishes to reply we state that our readers are tired of the 
controversy. We believe in fair play, and are sorry that 
we cannot afford the space demanded—at least until after 
the show season is over. We are agent for the Gazette, and 
will cheerfully supply that paper to any who are desirous of 
reading Mr. Wright’s replies, which are very interesting as 
well as amusing, he quoting quite copiously from the Hen 
Fever. 
We also have several articles from Mr. Burnham, in an- 
swer to Mr. Wright, which we cannot find room for at this 
time, but cheerfully give the following extract, which will 
close the question for the present.—ED. ] 
‘«Tf you will permit me to refer him and your readers to 
my new work—the ‘ China Fowl’’—just published, I will 
only add that in that volume I give the facts in this case, . 
at the close of the book, in full; and if those interested in 
the true history of the origin of the ‘‘ Brahmas ’”’ will read 
the collected evidence and cited records therein printed, 
side by side with Wright’s assertions and contradictions, 
they may judge, from the evidence adduced, who is right 
and who is wrong in this matter.’’ G. P. BuRNHAM. 

‘ARE not your prices high for those ducks?” « Yes, it 
would Rowen you to buy them.” 
Tuk lady who said she was going to send her daughters to 
Europe next season, to get the old masters to paint their 
portraits, now wants to know what variety of the Dorking 
it was that fought the great battle of Dorking that was in 
the papers some time ago. 
