354 
FANCIERS JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

to whom he introduced me as Mr. Willis. Before the Con- 
vention assembled, Mr. Halsted asked me if I could furnish 
him a table to write upon, at the same time saying that Mr. 
Estes, editor of Poultry Bulletin, was quite old and not quick 
enough to write up the Convention, and desired him (Hal- 
sted) to do so for the Bulletin; and I will state just here that 
later in the proceedings of the Convention, when it became 
apparent for what purpose Mr. Halsted desired to take the 
minutes of the Convention, I mentioned to Mr. Estes the 
compliment paid him by Mr. Halsted on his age and ina~ 
bility to write up the Convention, and his (Hstes’) desire to 
have him (Halsted) write up the Convention for the Bulletin, 
in answer to which Mr. Hstes said that he had made no such 
request of Mr. Halsted; that he considered himself com- 
petent to attend to his own business, and that he came to 
the Convention for that purpose. I furnished Mr. Halsted 
a table, which was placed, at his request, in a remote and 
out-of-the-way place in the room, and upon the assembling 
of the Convention both Mr. Halsted and the said Mr. Willis 
seated themselves at the table, and were busily engaged in 
writing. One of the first things the Convention did was to 
adopt, by a unanimous vote, a resolution that the standard 
which the Convention should agree upon should be the sole 
and exclusive property of the American Poultry Association, 
and that no one would be allowed to take the minutes of the 
Convention except the regular Secretaries. 
Notwithstanding the unanimous adoption of the above 
resolution, Mr. Halsted and the said Willis continued to 
write. My attention was called to this fact, and upon 
giving the matter a little attention I became convinced that 
the said Willis was a stenographer, and so reported to some 
of the members of the Convention. A very close watch 
was kept upon those two gentlemen from that time until the 
close of the session, and many members of the Convention 
reluctantly came to the conclusion that while Mr, Halsted 
ostensibly came as a delegate from the New York State 
Poultry Society to assist in making a new standard, his real 
purpose was to surreptitiously obtain the minutes of the 
Convention, procure a copyright of the standard, and issue 
the same as his personal property. At the opening of the 
next session of the Convention, the President called the 
attention of the delegates to the resolution forbidding any 
one except the Secretaries taking minutes, and said, as pre- 
siding officer, he should be obliged to enforce the rules, and 
if taking minutes by other persons than the Secretaries was 
persisted.in, it would be his duty to expel such persons. 
As might have been expected, after the forcible warning 
of the President, the Convention was not again annoyed by- 
Mr. Halsted, or his stenographer, taking minutes of the 
proceedings. During the same afternoon Mr. Halsted was 
suddenly called from the deliberations of the Convention, 
as he said, by a telegram from home advising him of sick- 
ness in his family; and the man whom Mr. Halsted intro- 
duced as Mr. Willis no longer found the sessions of the 
Convention of any interest, and paid them no attention. 
Mr. Halsted and his stenographer did not, however, take 
the same train home, for reasons that will be obvious to any 
reader. 
After the sessions of the Convention had ceased to be 
interesting to the stenographer, and after Mr. Halsted had 
left the city, a telegram was delivered to the Convention 
addressed ‘‘Albert OC. Cochrane, Stenographer to the Poultry 
Convention.”’ (I quote the address from memory, and the 
name may not be strictly correct.) Mr. Cochrane was called 

for in the Convention, but no one responded; and the Con- 
vention, not having employed a stenographer, it was a 
mystery who Mr. Cochrane was. It was suggested that 
Mr. Cochrane was stenographer to Mr. Halsted instead of 
the Poultry Convention, and that perhaps Mr. Cochrane 
and the person whom Mr. Halsted introduced as Mr. Willis, 
a delegate from New York State Poultry Society, were one 
and the same person; and a gentleman connected with the 
Convention took the telegram to the Bloomer Hotel, where 
the so-called Mr. Willis was stopping, and asked the clerk 
to hand it to the said Willis, which was done in the presence 
of the gentlemen who asked the clerk to doit. The result 
was, the man whom Mr. Halsted introduced as Mr. Willis, 
a delegate from New York State Poultry Society, opened 
the telegram which was addressed to ‘‘Albert E. Cochrane, 
Stenographer to the Poultry Convention,” read it, and did 
not again visit the Convention, but unceremoniously took 
the first train for New York or somewhere else. Many per- 
sons have been hung upon circumstantial evidence less direct 
and connecting than this; but the committee, after con- 
sidering the matter, came to the conclusion that Mr. Halsted 
had endeavored to perpetrate a fraud upon the Convention, 
and a committee was appointed to investigate the case more 
fully, and report at the meeting of the Executive Committee 
appointed to take place at Boston, in February. 
Upon the assembling of the Executive Committee at Bos- 
ton, the said Committee of Investigation made a report, 
which, together with other evidence in the possession of the 
Executive Committee, induced the writer of this article to 
offer a resolution of expulsion, which was unanimously 
adopted. A part of the evidence before the Committee was 
that a member of the Executive Committee, who was pres- 
ent at Buffalo and had taken a great interest in maintaining 
the integrity of the American Poultry Association, had been 
to New York a few days prior to the Boston meeting of the 
Executive Committee, and while in New York inquired for 
Albert E. Cochrane, a stenographer, and found a party who 
knew Mr. Cochrane, and had known him for years, and this 
person did point out to the said member of the Executive 
Committee as Albert E. Cochrane the same person whom Mr. 
Halsted introduced as George B. Willis, a delegate to the con- 
vention from the New York State Poultry Society. Does 
the candid reader think that the charge that Mr. Halsted 
was expelled on was a trumped-up charge? Does any fair- 
minded man who is acquainted with the gentlemen compos- 
ing the Executive Committee of the American Poultry 
Association, think they would try a member on a trumped- 
up charge, or expel him without good and sufficient reason ? 
Mr. Halsted, in his communication in No. 17, Fanciers’ 
Journal, objects to the tribunal as incompetent. I may be 
permitted to say that in my opinion he who objects to such 
a jury, and would endeavor to shield himself by such frivo-_ 
lous technicalities as are contained in said communication, 
must have a weak case indeed. The claim made by Mr. 
Halsted that the recourse of the American Poultry Associa- 
tion was upon the New York State Poultry Society, whose 
delegate he was, for the evil doings of Mr. Halsted, is too 
absurd to think of fora moment; and the advancement of - 
such an argument is, and will be, considered as an admission 
on the part of Mr. Halsted of the truth of the charge and 
an endeavor to shirk the responsibility. Mr. Halsted’s 
assertion that he was convicted upon the false testimony of 
Churchman and Sweet will demand from me only sufficient — 
attention to say that such arguments are unbecoming a gen- 

nq 
q 
} 
