

/ 
t 
i” 
& 
previous to expulsion. 
- tainly, in the calm judgment of every man, done itself much 
me 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL 
AND 
POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
Vou. I. 
PHILADELPHIA, MAY 14, 1874. 
No. 20. 


(For the Fanciers’ Journal.) 
A. P. A. vs. A. M. HALSTED. 
I am not the champion of the rights of the American 
Poultry Association, neither of those of Mr. Halsted. The 
question at issue, however, is one in which we are all inter- 
ested, inasmuch as the individual rights of every member of 
that Association, either present or prospective, is involved in 
the action of the adjourned meeting held at Boston. 
I do not pretend from the records to understand the case, 
and, I confess, I write this short article as much for the pur- 
pose of getting some light on the question for all of us, as 
for any other. 
In the first place I remark, therefore, that ‘‘ for ways that 
are dark,’’ the action of the Association at Boston in this 
particular case, beats the ‘‘ Heathen Chinee”’ all to pieces. 
Whether Mr. Halsted did, or did not, introduce a member 
under an assumed name is to the public not known; but the 
question in the public mind is: What object could Mr. Hal- 
sted have in so introducing any one? Why should he 
strive to introduce one to the presence of ‘‘the most dignified 
body of men ever assembled together for any honorable pur- 
pose’ under a false name? Here is where the records are 
dark. Those of us who were not at Boston can’t find out 
~ any of the facts of the case; neither who the member was, 
nor why he was sointroduced. If we had the facts we might 
form a more intelligent judgment on the matter. 
But, secondly, no court, in a republic like ours, ever con- 
victs a man without a trial. Iam extremely sorry that the 
movers in this action did not give Mr. Halsted a chance to 
come before them, and at least plead ‘not guilty.” This is 
where they have betrayed great weakness, if Mr. Halsted 
was not heard in his own defence. From the records we 
can’t tell whether he was present or not, nor whether he was 
invited to be present after having been made acquainted with 
the specific charges against him; nor can we even tell whether 
he was ever made acquainted with the charges against him 
If not, the Association has cer- 
dishonor, and its members, particularly Mr. Halsted, a 
_ great wrong. 
Now, I confess, to me this is a bad showing for ‘the most 
dignified and honorable,” &c.; or, are we to understand that 
the President had just read Mark Antony’s oration over the 
dead body of Cesar, and was perpetrating a grim joke at the 
expense of the Association when he used that phrase? An- 
tony said of the assassins of Cwsar: ‘‘ These are all honora- 
ble men.” 
I have not a bit of doubt as to the integrity and honor of 
the members of the American Poultry Association. Many 
of them are my personal friends, but they will agree with me 
that that part which took action at Boston either did it in 
undue haste or they have covered some evidence which the 
public has not had a chance to hear. Now, in justice to 


themselves, and in justice to Mr. Halsted, this evidence 
should be forthcoming at once. 
But, on the other side, if Mr. Halsted’s statement is true, 
as published, and neither the American Poultry Association 
nor any one else has ever publicly denied it, and, besides, it 
seems entirely fair on the face, what then? Simply this, that 
some of the members have proved themselves hot-headed, 
and repulsed and driven away many who were anxious to 
become members from offering their names to the Asso- 
ciation. 
If Mr. Halsted’s statement is correct the Association 
should not lose a moment in reversing its action. In fact, if it 
is correct, the mover of that resolution owes it to him to pub- 
lish a proper apology in every paper in which the resolution 
for expulsion was published. If not correct, and the mover 
of the resolution has the-evidence, it is due to him and the 
Association, and the public, that it is brought to light. Let 
us know at once whether this is mere persecution, or whether 
the accused has been guilty of an offence which would war- 
rant his expulsion. FNS IN ie 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
THE LAST REVISION OF THE STANDARD. 
To Wm. H. CHurcuMan, Hsq., 
President American Poultry Association, Claymont, Del. 
Drar Str: The universal dissatisfaction exhibited among 
American poultry breeders and fanciers with the results of 
the hastily concluded Convention held at Buffalo in January 
—of which you were presiding officer—prompts me to 
address you directly, for the purpose of presenting to you 
officially my views, already communicated publicly through 
two of our leading poultry journals. 
Personally, J have no especial interest in the matter of 
a ‘Standard of Excellence’’ for adoption at American poul- 
try exhibitions, because I long since ceased to be a contrib- 
utor of my stock to our public shows—after a successful 
career for years among sharp competitors with my Chinese 
fowls, which proved (at least to me) of the most flattering 
and remunerative character; but, feeling the same lively 
interest in the welfare of my brother fanciers at large that 
T have indulged for over a quarter of acentury, and believing 
that I know something about this subject (or ought to) 
through past long experience, I desire to call your attention, 
and, through you, the notice also of the officers and mem- 
bers of the new ‘‘ American Poultry Association’ to my 
views, and to this end I respectfully present the following 
specific objections to the “standard” just issued under your 
auspices, which is offered to the poultry societies of the 
United States as law, to govern their conduct at future pub- 
lic fowl exhibitions. These objections to, and my opinion 
of this proposed ‘‘standard,”’ are in part as follows: 
First. The phraseology in this work is unwisely and 
unnecessarily arbitrary in its general character, and alto- 
