306 
’ gether offensive, especially through the mandatory dictum 
embodied in its badly framed “instructions to judges.”’ 
Second. Said ‘instructions’? cannot be made practicable 
or useful, since their subjugative and imperative wording 
must inevitably have the effect of preventing any indepen- 
dent, competent, honorable man, from accepting the always- 
thankless post of a judge at our shows, under the compulsory 
rules thus prescribed to control his own opinion. 
Third. In my judgment, no such gratuitous manacles 
should be provided for fair honest judges; and I am not 
ready to admit that any ‘‘association’’? or set of men, 
through their simple tpse dizit, have the right to impose 
such regulations either upon Show judges, or any other 
state, county, or town association. 
Fourth. I am convinced, through numerous adverse let- 
ters latterly received, and by free oral communication with 
scores of American fanciers, that this work, in its present 
highly objectionable form, can never be adopted to any 
extent by poultry societies in this country as a standard, 
and that it is for this reason comparatively worthless for its 
intended purpose as a rule. 
Fifth. The standard, as published, was evidently made 
up in too hurried a manner at the best, and, though the 
intents of its framers may have been good, it fails in details, 
in many respects, to meet the needs and the views of the 
American poultry fraternity generally, who find this: but a 
rehash of former ignored similar works. 
Sizth. I believe it will be condemned likewise on ac- 
count of its incompleteness, its apparent partiality, its 
palpable omissions, and in several instances (as J look at it), 
the parodoxical nonsense of its stated requirements and 
declarations as to ‘‘ disqualifications ”’ in certain breeds. 
Seventh. In this connection, I cite for example the bald 
inconsistency in this standard, regarding the prize requi- 
sites for ‘“ Brahma’’ fowls. The Light Brahmas las have 
‘legs strong, and well feathered to tips of owfer toes.’ 
The Dark Branca must have “legs strong, well ferthiores 
outside, to the ends of outer and middle toes.’ In points, 
symmetry counts ten in the Light Brahmas, and the same 
quality in the Dark Brahmas counts fifteen, according to 
this standard. Why should this difference in the same qual- 
ification be thus rated, and why should there be required 
this difference of “ feathering on the toes,’ upon two colors 
of the same birds? Can anything be sillier than these two 
assumptions ? 
In the ‘‘ Game Bantam” list, on page 32, but 95 points 
(instead of 100) are set down for judges to ‘‘ strictly adhere 
to”? in deciding upon this class. As to the ‘Cochins’’ (see 
page 16, in the list of qualifications), this standard declares 
‘‘vulture hocks objectionable, but not a disqualification.” 
On pages 18, 20, 21, same chapter, in the list of disqualifica- 
tions for Partridge, White, Buff, and Black Cochins in each 
variety, your standard declares separately, ‘‘ vulture hocks 
are particularly objectionable.’’ What are we to understand 
by these flat contradictions, uttered in the same breath; and 
how are judges under your positive instructions to ‘‘ adhere 
strictly to your rules’ on page 8 and 4, to decide this point? 
Eighth. In the case of ‘“ Houdans,”’ your new standard 
requires (vide page 67), that ‘the toes shall be five in num- 
ber, the fifth claw turned upward;’” and ‘the absence of 
the fifth toe is a disqualification.” Now it is notorious that 
the fifth toe belongs rightfully only to the Dorking fowl 
(originally), and also that seven out of ten of our best Hou- 

FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
dan breeders recognize only four toes for this variety, in its 
French purity. 
Ninth. In the classification of ‘‘ Games,’’? more than half 
a dozen. known established varieties are omitted in the new 
lists entirely—as the Irish Grays, the Shawl Games, the 
Spangled, Birchin Duck, Blues, Red Duns, Brass Back, 
Blue Reds, etc., no one of which varieties do I find alluded 
to, even in this ‘‘revised’’ new standard; but all of which 
are largely bred in America, by such fanciers as Van Win- 
kle, N. J.; Col. Meacham, Mass.; Bestor, Conn. ; Bicknell, 
N. Y.; Hancock, Mass., and others. 
Tenth. No mention is made in this work of several other 
distinct, well known, and long bred varieties of fowls, which © 
are far more familiar to Eastern breeders, than are those 
last named—and the query is often put, upon examining: 
this ‘American standard ’’—How are we to get our birds; 
into future shows? . To wit—the “‘ Black Javas,’’ the ‘‘ Guil- 
derlands,’’ the ‘‘ Bolton Grays,”’ the Marsh, the Forbes, the: 
Bailies’ Shanghais, ete. Why are all these varieties which 
we have bred for years and vears, thus left out in the cold? 
The formal presentation of these ten cogent reasons is 
made without argument, and simply in the shape of facts. 
I deem them, Mr. President, of sufficient consequence to 
arrest the attention of yourself, and that of your official 
associates, and to warrant your society in attempting a com- 
plete correction of the errors herein complained of. 
I desire that this communication may be received in the 
spirit in which it is written; but I submit, in view of the 
premises, that this new American Standard of Excellence, 
as revised under the auspices of the American Poultry Asso- 
ciation at Buffalo, is not what the poultry fanciers and our 
.| breeders in this country want—what they need—what they 
expected—and what they are bound to haye—sooner or 
later ; and that is an improvement upon all former abortive 
and ill-planned attempts in this direction. 
I could urge upon your consideration, further, the fact that 
your new standard is not put forth at a popular price—one 
dollar being at least eight times the cost of this pamphlet. 
I could point out what I deem grave mistakes in your 
admission of known cross-bred fowls in this standard’s lists, 
as recognized varieties. I could reiterate remarks that are 
oft repeated among New England breeders, to the effect that 
all these faults of omission and commission point indubita- 
bly to a purpose, on the part of a few managers, at the 
expense of the many poultry men in this country, but I 
forbear to enlarge for the present. 
As I have publicly suggested, 1 repeat it—the fanciers 
and breeders of America demand ‘‘a new deal’”’ in this 
standard matter. Will it be agreeable to you and your 
associates to call another Convention of all interested in this 
subject, at a conveniently early day, and at a central place, 
where we may come together en masse, and in open meeting 
discuss and vote upon this subject of a final revision of the 
American standard, where all parties may have the oppor- 
tunity to hear and be heard, without being compelled to 
pay three dollars for the privilege? 
Through such means, the standard that we all want, and 
need, may be properly and appropriately arranged, and we 
may thus get, in my opinion, a reliable work, which every 
fancier in America will thankfully accept as authority, and 
which every Society will immediately adopt as a useful, prac- 
tical, applicable, and acceptable ‘‘American Standard of 
Excellence.”’ I am respectfully yours, 
MELROSE, Mass., May, 1874. Gro. P. BuRNHAM. 
