





1 
age to get out a good American standard. 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
307 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
A SENSIBLE PROPOSAL. 
J. M. Wansz, Esa. 
Your Fanciers’ Journal, through its contributor, Mr. 
Burnham, has taken the initiative in a matter of the great- 
est importance to poultry interests, and I was pleased to see, 
in arecent number of your admirable weekly, his ideas of 
the new National American Standard and its projectors. 
Mr. Burnham is a veteran in poultry breeding, and his ad- 
vice on this subject of properly revising our standard is 
well-timed. If such a convention as he suggests could be 
held this summer, it would undoubtedly be attended by our 
poultry men generally ; and in an open, fair meeting, where 
all could be heard, a good many new ideas and valuable 
hints as to what we ought to have in an American standard 
would be brought out to manifest general advantage. 
Whatever may be done, one thing is evident, and that is 
that this last ‘‘revision” of the standard is no advance on 
_ former efforts of the kind, and cannot answer the purpose 
or fulfil the expectations of American poulterers. To say 
nothing of its mistakes, omissions, inconsistencies, and glar- 
ing contradictions, the rules laid down at its commence- 
ment, controlling our judges at exhibitions, are strikingly in 
bad taste, and to my mind altogether superfluous. I hope a 
new convention will be held, and I trust that such meeting 
will be fully attended. In this way, I think, we may not 
only correct the errors of this almost useless work, but man- 
CHE. 
Boston, April, 1874. 

i oS 
(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
MR. SECRETARY RALPH’S CARD. 
Epitor FANCIERS’ JOURNAL. 
Will you allow me a few lines of space in your columns 
on the subject of the proposed new ‘‘standard,”’ to say that 
the card published in No. 18 of your paper by Edmund S. 
Ralph, Esq., Secretary of the American Poultry Associa- 
tion, is very fair and courteous, as well as prompt in 
response to the published criticisms of the work in question ? 
But, at the same time, I would like to ask what are we who 
have bought ‘‘the incomplete and erroneous first edition” 
he alludes to, to do with it? How, when it is corrected and 
again ‘‘revised,’’ shall we get the proposed second edition ? 
Must we invest another dollar each for this last attempt? 
Will that be final, if arranged by the Executive Committee 
aforesaid only? Before printing any more editions of this 
_- work any way, I think we had better have the ‘free and 
full discussion” he suggests, in open convention somewhere, 
where ali American poultry men can be heard and con- 
sulted with as to what this ‘‘second edition’ should con- 
tain. It is immaterial who calls this convention. If the 
National Association choose to do so, well and good. But 
do not let us have any more editions of this work till ‘the 
back counties shall have been heard from,’’ as suggested by 
half a dozen of your correspondents lately. 
Respectfully, Rieu. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
OMISSIONS IN THE NEW STANDARD. 
Epitor Fanciers’ JOURNAL. 
I can’t do it—I wish I could—but I am quite ‘ disquali- 
fied’? to put the question so cleverly to the point as your 
spicy, well-posted, and experienced correspondent, Mr. G. P. 
Burnham, of Massachusetts, has accomplished it. 
I have read all of this trenchant writer’s published books 
on poultry matters, his funny record of the ‘history of 
the hen fever’’ included; and what he don’t know about 
fowl raising in America, is not worth knowing. I fancy 
he writes ably as well as pleasantly, and I peruse his con- 
tributions to the Fanciers’ Journal and elsewhere with great 
pleasure. In this actively controverted matter of the new 
Standard of Excellence, among the well known varieties of 
domestic birds that are not alluded to in the official lists, I 
am acquainted with three or four distinct breeds, which, it 
strikes me, ought to find a place in any complete American 
Standard. There are the ‘‘Sumatra Game,’’ the ‘‘ Domi- 
nique Game,’’ and the famous ‘‘Dun Games;’’ also, the 
“ Bolton Grays” or ‘‘ Cradle fowls,’’ these last being better 
known in many quarters than several more modern breeds, . 
and a beautiful bird they are, altogether—called sometimes 
Dutch or everlasting layers, from their noted prolificness 
in this respect. 
It strikes me that the ‘‘ American Poultry Association ’’ 
are bound to call a new convention for their own credit. I 
agree with Mr- Burnham that a convention ought to be’ 
called by somebody, and I coincide with you that there does 
not seem to be need for such call outside of the present ex- 
isting national society, the officers of which, generally, must 
have discovered ere this that the new standard they have 
thrown together so carelessly, is not what was anticipated 
at their hands, and that it cannot come into use among 
State poultry societies as it now stands. 
In the first part of this little book, the chapter of ‘ direc- 
tions to judges’’ is very objectionable, and to my view is 
simply impracticable, taken in connection with the contra- 
dictory particulars that erroneously appear in the body of 
the standard; besides this, as several of your writers sug- 
gest, these directions or positive instructions are quite unnec- 
essary, and by their dogmatical wording are rendered 
absolutely nugatory, as well as presumptuous. 
If a new convention be held, I hope it will be fully atten- 
ded by poultry men from all the States; and I trust that 
the next attempts to fix up a good American standard will 
be more successful in the end. I have so far failed to find a 
single article in our poultry journals in favor of this one- 
dollar pamphlet. Has it got no friends? 
Respectfully yours, 
S. T. HowE tu. 
BROOKLYN, N. Y. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
THE PROPOSED NEW CONVENTION. 
Your leading editorial in No. 18 is very judicious in its 
recommendations as to the calling of another convention, 
to revise the last revised standard. No one will object to 
your mode; 7.¢., that such convention be called by the Amer- 
ican Poultry Association, whose officers ask for a fair, honest 
criticism of their doings, etc. 
This is just as it should be. If this society choose to call 
a new convention, and will make their invitation broad 
enough to admit all classes of poultry men who may be 
permitted to take part in the deliberations, without being 
obliged to pay $3 for the chance (unless they choose to 
donate this sum), everybody will be satisfied with the 
arrangement, and ought to beso. Such a meeting would 
be very largely attended, no doubt. Those who could not, 
or would not attend, must make themselves content with 
‘the doings of such a convention; for, if they absent them- 

