338 

nor was it the proper or most feasible plan to make a “‘ Nation- 
al Standard.”’” The moment astandard becomes the act of any 
particular society or association it is local and not general or 
universal in its character, and is binding only on the organ- 
ization from which it emanates, and the moment it attempts 
to stretch its authority over other bodies or individuals it 
usurps power. In this country the people are the source of 
power or sovereign. It is the people in general convention 
assembled, or by their delegates, that legitimate power orig- 
inates. It is this agency which frames and changes our 
constitutions. Itis the foundation of our fundamental codes. 
It is this that gives them existence, vitality and nationality. 
“This is true liberty, where free-born men 
Having to advise the public may speak free, 
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise: 
Who neither can nor will may hold his peace. 
What can be juster in a state than this?” 
A general convention of the poultry men of this country 
is the only legitimate body to erect a national standard and 
whatever emanates from such a body must be recognized 
as authority throughout the whole country, and binding on 
all, since it may be called the work of each man individually 
by his representatives. Therefore I say it is no one’s busi- 
ness but their own, if a number of gentleman choose to as- 
semble and organize themselves into an association and to 
call it by whatever name they please, no matter how inap- 
propriate the name may be, to designate the character of the 
association. Now, is it anybody’s business but their own if 
they see fit to make a standard for their own use, and cau- 
tion people that it is their ‘‘exclusive property,’’ and place 
what price upon it they please. Those that are not mem- 
bers of the association are not obliged to purchase it and 
they have no right to complain of its price or the manner 
of its getting up. It is of no use fo parties outside of the 
organizations, since it is no authority for them, nor is it 
binding upon them. Being the private property of the 
association it is of no efficiency beyond its own walls. 
It is local—not national. But when any local institution at- 
tempts to foist a standard of its own making upon the poultry 
fraternity of this country nolentes volentes, we have not only 
aright to complain of but to resist such an assumption of 
power. The appellation of national does not make it so. 
The name adds nothing to its authority. It is illegitimate 
ab initio. It has not the sanction of the breeders of the 
whole country—they have not been regularly represented. 
If the call at Buffalo had been for a general convention of 
the poultry men of the country, and had stated clearly the 
objects of the convention, and the poultry men had been 
regularly represented by their delegates, we should have 
had a legitimate and binding power, and whatever standard 
they may have adopted would have been ‘‘The National 
Standard of America.” 
It appears by the proceedings of this Association at Buffalo, 
that its presiding officer, in his opening speech to his brother 
fanciers, took occasion to extend a cordial invitation to every- 
body present to join the Association, and that the delegates 
who were sent there for one of two objects—to meet in 
general convention to revise, amend and establish a national 
standard, which I believed was the real purpose of their 
constituents—did for some cause or other unite themselves 
to the American Poultry Association, and transferred and 
set over to said association some of the most precious rights 
and privileges of their respective societies, and thereby 
making their respective societies amenable to the rules and 


FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

regulations of their ‘head centre.”” We also find it stated 
in the proceedings that the real business of the day was the 
establishing of a standard of excellence, to be used ‘‘ ewclu- 
sively”? by the association in the award of prizes. This is 
one of the most remarkable transactions that ever came un- 
der my observation; a class of delegates representing most 
of the poultry societies of the country meet at Buffalo, and 
in a body join another association and delegate to it most of 
the powers pertaining to their own respective organizations. 
The standard adopted is exclusively the standard of this asso- 
ciation, and is not binding on other societies, and cannot be 
used by them without first obtaining the consent of the 
American Poultry Association. And so very jealous were 
they of this right that one of the delegates, before proceed- 
ing to business, moved that ‘‘the doings of the association 
with respect to the standard should be the exclusive property 
of the association.’’ So that not only the standard but all . 
acts in relation to it was emphatically declared to be their 
exclusive property. Probably this was done to prevent Hal- 
sted from getting out a patent right to his report on French 
and Spanish fowls and lop-eared rabbits. I do not see 
anywhere in the proceedings at Buffalo any disposition or 
effort to make a national standard. They have a child of 
their own creation, and they seem to have named it before 
it was born. They do not seem to have taken it much at 
heart whether it was a legitimate child or a bastard. It 
seems to me rather ungracious to abuse another person’s 
child, no matter how ugly its features or grotesque its dress. 
It is only a baby still in swaddling cloths, and we cannot 
very well prejudge its intelligence or predict its duration 
of life. Isaac VAN WINKLE. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE STANDARD. 
BY GEORGE P. BURNHAM. 
It was not my intention, originally (and I have not 
changed my purpose now), to enter into any controversy— 
and, least of all, into personalities—in my strictures upon 
the new ‘standard’? question. I have no time to devote to 
replying to the defenders of this work; and with the indi- 
vidual opinions of these gentlemen I have nothing whatever 
todo. There is a general principle involved in this matter, 
however, to my way of thinking, and upon general princi- 
ples only have I yet (or shall I hereafter), have anything to 
offer upon this topic. . : 
My opinion is as good as another’s—no better. The judg- 
ment of Mr. A, Mr. B, or Mr. ©, is worth precisely what 
he may contrive to make it with the public. Fanciers and 
breeders will accept the expression of such opinions at pre- 
cisely their true value, come from whom they may. I have 
not argued-this question, and I do not propose to. I have 
stated plain facts simply as they appear to my limited vision, 
and if others can gainsay these assertions and propositions, 
all right, I am content. 
I have spoken of mo man, individually, as being responsi- 
ble for, or concerned in, the results of the labors of the late 
poultry convention which decided this ‘ standard,” but thus 
far have written about the doings of the public body and 
its committees, who so hastily arrived at the incomplete, 
erroneous, and unacceptable conclusions embodied in the 
pamphlet put forth by the convention at Buffalo. Al this 
I did, and have the right to do, in a respectful way. Ifmy 
language is more earnest and pointed than may prove pal- 
atable to some of these gentlemen, I have to assure them 
a 
