290 FANCIERS’ JOURNAL 
rushed through the printer’s hands pell-mell, but carefully 
read, compared with official minutes, and re-read before it 
is issued from the press. 
And now I must say a word about those who participated 
in the work at Buffalo in January last. As a whole they 
were a most intelligent and respectable body of men. Very 
many of them, however, were new hands in the business, 
and honestly stated that they came there to learn, not to 
teach. Many, like myself, went there with no intention of 
joining the Association, but found that unless they did they 
could have no seat in the convention; and I think I may 
add, on their behalf, that had they known with what con- 
summate art resolution after resolution would be offered and 
passed (by a vote of not one-third of the members, the 
majority of them not voting because not seeing the drift of 
the resolutions), each one drawing tighter and tighter the 
coils of the ‘‘ Ring,”’ they would have returned home the 
first day of the convention rather than be identified with 
the proceedings which have brought so little credit to those 
who worked so hard and so faithfully, only to have their 
labors nullified by self-constituted mentors. 
Rye, April 23, 1874. A. M. Hatsrep. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE. 
‘“‘A member’’ in your issue of April 9th, seems to feel 
very unpleasant (with himself, I should say), perhaps be- 
cause he paid out his money to become a member of the 
American Poultry Association. Oertainly, because he paid 
for two copies of their standard at the price fixed by the 
Association at Buffalo, whereby the Association received a 
good profit. As it was estimated and hoped they would 
make enough out of the sales of their standard during the 
coming spring, summer, and fall, to warrant them in get- 
ting up a national, or rather an international show the 
coming winter, when more than the profits on publica- 
tion of standard would be distributed among the fanciers 
and breeders of America, who had so willingly and kindly 
contributed their mite toward the great enterprise, whereby- 
all the fraternity would be benefited—indirectly, if not 
directly—and it must be known by all, that the work is one 
that at best only a limited sale can be looked for, notwith- 
standing to quote ‘*A member.’”’ ‘One hundred thousand 
standards are wanted.’”’ ‘And they contain really valuable 
matter, and a kind no poultry breeder can do without.” 
If the Association dispose of, say eight to ten thousand 
copies within the year, they will do well, then the Associa- 
tion may feel like going in for a show; but if there are 
many, (and I have great reason to think they are few), that 
feel as benevolently towards them as ‘‘A member,’’ it will 
be a long time before America can boast her grand exhibi- 
tion. 
Poultry has always been my hobby, but not the only one. 
I take a numismatic quarterly that costs three dollars per 
year, and has no more reading matter than is furnished for 
one dollar in the standard, and I would not be without 
either of them for five times the cost. I must therefore take 
exception to “‘A member,’”’ dubbing the standard a misera- 
ble little pamphlet; (I wonder what it would be if he owned 
it.) To those who have not seen it, I would say it isa work 
of over one hundred pages, gotten up in good type, on good 
paper, with good heavy paper covers; and as for the profits, 
they all go to the owner and publisher, who, ‘‘A member” 
knows, is the American Poultry Association; and one dol- 
lar is as low as they should be asked (under the circumstan- 
ces), to sell it for at retail, and it is worth it to any one who 
has a half dozen fowls he thinks enough of to wish to im- 
rove them. EH. S. Raupw. 
BuFFALO, N, Y. 


AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
“OLD” OR “NEW?” 
Mr. Eprror. 
Are we to be governed by the old standard or the new 
one? Or are we to have the valuable pages of our poultry 
journals continually taken up with discussions in regard to 
Churchman and Halsted, which is of no vital importance 
to the mass of poultry breeders? The important question 
is with most of us, Which shall be our standard? I would 
suggest that the executive committees of all the poultry 
associations in the United States vote at once on the new 
standard ;, then, if a majority of the associations vote for it, 
why, adopt it at once; on the other hand, if the majority of 
the poultry associations vote against its adoption, then pub- 
lish the fact in the poultry magazines of the United States 
that the poultry associations of the country will be governed 
by the standard of 1871 until the time shall come when the 
poultry breeders of America will unite together in perfect 
harmony and adopt a standard which shall receive the 
hearty approval of all. Respectfully, 
W. T. RoGErs. 
DOYLESTOWN, Pa. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
Jos. M. WADE, Esq. : 
I see in No. 16 of the Fanciers’ Journal quite a lengthy 
article in regard to the new standard and another conven- 
tion, etc., and it seems to me the writer has labored hard to 
bring into disrepute the men and their doings, without just 
cause. I do not think his arguments well put—for instance: 
He says that he ‘‘coincides with correspondent W. that 
there was no need of this (so-called) thorough revision of 
the previous American standard.’”? But every one knows 
there was much dissatisfaction with it, and called it the one- - 
man standard, and most everything else. Yet he thinks 
that another convention will be called because of dissatis- 
faction at the last revision adopted by a select few with 
closed doors, three dollars admission fee, etc. He had the 
same privilege as the “select few’’ to attend if he had 
availed himself of it. Ifadmission fee is wrong, why is it 
not wrong to charge membership fees by State societies 
or entrance, fees at shows—as one must pay or he cannot 
show his fowls, must buy a ticket or he cannot get in? A 
man can dance or not, as he pleases, but if he dances he 
must help pay the fiddlers. He compares this convention 
to “the mountain that has labored to bring forth a very 
small mouse.’’ Only three days’ labor spent in this revision, 
he says. I would ask if any one thinks men can spend all 
winter at a hen convention? I was -one of those who did 
not give it any time, other business preventing ; but men 
came from all parts of the United States and the Canadas— 
prominent breeders—as the list shows for itself. Now he 
would have another convention called, have it free to all, 
and the result would probably be, the town or city it was 
held in would have enough in the convention to rule it, and 
that lucky place would make the standard for this whole 
country. J admit that the standard is faulty, but for all 
that I do not go in for jumping out of the frying-pan into 
the fire. We never shall see a perfect standard; but if we 
could, some one would howl then, as there is such a variety 
of opinions in this free country, and plenty of men who, 
when they do not have their say, call it all wrong. These 
facts show that we need a standard, and one with fixed tech- 
nical rules (which he complains of), so that breeders may 
know just what they must breed for to compete at the 
shows. He complains because Plymouth Rocks were put in 
the last standard. They are in the 1871 standard, ‘* which 
needed no revision,’ he thinks. The fact is, it is all 
wrangle! wrangle!! wrangle!!! C. A. PITKIN. 
HARTFORD, CONN. 
