

FANCIERS’ 
JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
339 


that I have no shadow of personal feeling in it. I have no 
motive of private interest therein, and I totally disclaim 
any design to offend any individual anywhere in my stric- 
tures. 
Hither this standard is a good one, such as it ought to be, 
or itis not. I have given my reasons why I think it is not 
what we need, and what we all looked for, at the hands of 
the undoubtedly well-meaning gentlemen who framed it. 
Am I alone in this opinion? Am I in the minority even 
upon this question? Have my objections been answered ? 
Can this work (as it now stands) be defended fairly by any- 
body? I think not. And so think hundreds of the poultry 
men and fanciers of America, as [ know. 
So, asking at the hands of the friends of the standard, 
the same courteous treatment toward me that I would hon- 
estly extend toward them in this matter, I crave space in 
your columns to say that I have no disposition to criticise or 
contend with the opinions of any individual gentleman upon 
this complicated question; and I trust that all who have any- 
thing to present in favor of this book, may give their 
judgment strictly wpon the merits of the standard, without 
attempting to drag me or any other writer into a war of 
words through personal attacks, which can never move me 
to retaliate in kind, since it is not my style to slop over, or 
go into hysterics in this business. 
I have seen nothing, as yet, that answers the objections 
(and the reasons therefore), published in your columns and 
elsewhere, latterly, from my pen, to wit: I have said the 
price of the standard is eight times too high} that the work 
was hurried out unduly; that it contained paradoxical in- 
consistencies; that its lists omitted to mention several 
known varieties bred all over the country; that cross-bred 
fowls are therein ‘‘ recognized’ as breeds; that it is inaccu- 
rate in its estimates of ‘‘ points;” that it requires the two 
kinds of Brahmas to be feathered differently upon their feet ; 
that it is unwieldy and verbose in its phraseology; that it 
contains very many typographical errors for which there 
is no excuse; that its ‘‘ Instructions to judges’”’ are gratui- 
tous and dictatorial; that judges could not follow these 
directions implicitly, as they are ordered to do, in conse- 
quence of the mistakes and inaccuracies in the book—and 
that, in my opinion, in its present incomplete and muddled 
shape, State and county societies in the United States can- 
not use it to advantage, and therefore they will not adopt it 
until it is again revised and corrected by a full open meet- 
ing of all parties interested. Now, what is there in these 
general allegations to offend Mr. D, Mr. H, or Mr. F? 
It is an old adage, ‘that only the wounded bird flutters.”’ 
I hope that nobody concerned is so absolutely timber-toed 
as to apply my criticisms to himself individually; and I 
really do not see how my opinions can be thus construed. 
But when these objections of mine are fairly replied to, in 
the courteous and conscientious spirit which animated me 
in suggesting them, by any interested or disinterested fan- 
cier, no one can be more ready than I shall be to ‘stand 
corrected’’ if lam wrong. But I sincerely believe that not 
one of these propositions can be answered in favor of this 
standard. This is simply my honest opinion. 
MELROSE, May 9, 1874. 
R@s A tombstone at Columbia, Tenn., has this inscrip- 
tion: ‘‘ Escaped the bullets of the enemy to be assassinated 
by a cowardly pup—a kind husband and an affectionate 
father,”? 


(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
OBJECTIONS TO THE STANDARD. 
I see by the various criticisms in the poultry papers of the 
country, that the standard, as adopted at the Buffalo and 
Boston meetings of the American Poultry Assoviation, does 
not give wniversal satisfaction, and I also notice that the 
Secretary of said Association sends out a general invitation 
to all interested persons to send at once ‘‘any omission or 
error’’ that they may discover in the ‘first edition.’? Well, 
now, is not this rather strange proceeding? It is simply 
saying that the standard so many have already purchased 
at what they consider an exorbitant price ($1.00) is good 
for nothing, and a little way farther on the said Secretary 
says that said errors may be corrected in ‘the second 
edition,’”’ and so, in a little while, we are to have a chance 
to pay another dollar or perhaps more for said ‘* second 
edition.”’ 
Now, if there is to be more of the standard printed, as 
represented, of course there must be a revision of the present 
at least, and in order that it may be truly American, as some 
say it is not in its present shape and manner of adoption, 
I would suggest that it be done in the usual American style, 
that is by electing delegates to a general convention to be 
held at some proper place at an early day, and I would say 
that such a convention should be elected by the various state 
societies, and consist of 5 or 7 delegates from each state 
having a society, and of a less number from any state which 
has not a state society, provided that said state contain in- 
terested persons enough to call a meeting and elect 1 or 8 
delegates to said convention, and then each state could be 
represented by its best men, and would be under obligation 
to accept such a standard as said convention should see fit 
to issue. I can see no reason why such a meeting could not 
be very easily called and give universal satisfaction, be en- 
tirely and strictly confined to the delegates, they and they 
only voting or taking part in the doings of said meeting ; 
but not with closed doors, nor any of the $3 admission fee, 
but each state society to pay its share of the expenses. 
Now, I do not propose to set myself up as a critic, but, 
as others have, I am inclined to say that I think from 
what I have read that a revision of the new standard is 
absolutely necessary. Most everybody is dissatisfied with it. 
I see by the Poultry Exchange, No. 18, that the Bucks 
County Poultry Association has voted it down, and in the 
same paper, No. 19, many errors are pointed out, besides so 
many others at other times and places, and then in the 
Poultry World for May we have a very funny defence of the 
standard by our friend I. K. Felch, in which he says, in 
describing the back, the description closes with ‘color, 
milk white.’’ He says: ‘* We could not in so few words 
express the whole, and the committee wish by it to be un- 
derstood that any color of white found in the different shades 
of milk to be admitted and none other. We are well aware 
that some milk is pearl-white, and that the other extreme 
borders upon a cream-color, and as they are all found in the 
different shades of milk, and that they are each and all to’ 
be accepted.”’ ; 
Well that seems to be a very broad platform, and any- 
body who cannot fit the standard with feathers on his Light 
Brahma Cock’s back had better give up the chicken busi- 
ness. Buta little farther on in same article friend Felch 
says that said committee admitted underfeathering bluish- 
white or white. Now, as skimmed milk is about that color 
