372 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

in good type and in very neat shape by W. H. Lockwood, 
of Hartford, Conn., and was adopted by the Connectigqut 
State Poultry Society. This was really a National standard, 
and was looked upon with few exceptions as authority 
by all the breeders of the country. It was not quite perfect 
and not quite up to the times, but much better in many 
respects than the one issued at Buffalo. " 
Another object of this society is to discuss all matters of 
a national character regarding poultry interests. This can 
be done and is done in our local societies. For this purpose 
one of the best and most enterprising methods has been in- 
augurated by the Connecticut State Poultry Society. 
They also propose to advise and assist all the poultry so- 
cieties of the country in the selection of their judges ‘‘ when 
requested,’ or when they are reduced to that condition in 
which they shall be unable or unfit for such a duty. 
But what they principally aim at is contained in the latter 
part of this same article. Here is the pith and marrow of 
all their aims—to secure the “entire co-operation of the 
various poultry societies of the country for fixing the time 
of the various local exhibitions, and all rules pertaining 
thereto, the appointment of judges, and methods of judging.” 
Not a very inconsiderable stretch of power. And how do 
they propose to accomplish this vast scheme? Through 
those delegates from such local societies as shall conform to 
Section 2 of Article III. 
Now, I will venture to say, that if the various societies that 
have sent delegates to Buffalo, had calmly considered the 
matter in all its bearings, they never would have committed 
such an egregious error as to place themselves so completely 
in the power and control of any other organization. In 
expressing my views so plainly I hope I shall not be con- 
sidered personal, or that I desire to impugn the motives of 
any member of the American Poultry Association. For 
each and all its members I entertain the highest regard. I 
am discussing the effects of their Constitution over the other 
' societies who have placed themselves under its shadow, and 
whether the standard they have promulgated has any of the 
qualities of a national character. I do not charge upon the 
association any abuse of the tremendous power it wields, but 
am merely pointing out the dangers if it should feel disposed 
to assert its authority in an arbitrary manner. 
If the President in his opening address had spoken more 
fully of the positive advantages of such a central organization, 
and had refrained from all allusion to its negative qualities, 
we should not possibly have heard the mutterings of ‘‘ envy, 
hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness.’”? It seems to me 
whoever the party or parties may be that could deliberately 
accuse the members of this association of forming ‘‘a clique 
or ring,’”’ or that they had any design to promote their own 
personal ends to the injury of others could have had but a 
very slight acquaintance with their fairness of character and 
standing for integrity. However, I think that the emphatic 
language of the President, that ‘‘ never was there such a pre- 
posterous idea entertained by any human mind that God Al- 
mighty gifted with the power of thought and reason,’’ should 
have forever quieted their fears. But what surprised me more 
than anything else was the statement of the President that 
the United States Congress had recognized the American 
Poultry Association as a national institution, and that this 
august body should have shown such slight discernment, 
and traveled so far out of its own sphere of politics to enter 
into the domain of Chickendom. If the inflation bill had 
been before them at that time, I should have thought that 
they were in quest of the goose that laid the golden egg. 
Isaac VAN WINKLE. 





(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
THE “BRAHMA” FOWL—WRIGHT AGAIN ST 
BURNHAM. ras. 
BY GEO P. BURNHAM. 
I rarely trouble myself with noticing anonymous writers 
on poultry. Your correspondent, ‘‘F. R. W.,’”’ pays his 
respects to me, however, by quoting a long extract from , 
Wright’s Illustrated Book; the author having in that work 
launched this singularly baseless assault at me (for his own 
reasons), and I thus feel called on to reply to Mr. Wright, 
whom I have believed to be a gentleman, as I know he is 
very clever with his pen, ordinarily, and who is not afraid 
to affix his proper name to what he writes. 
Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for your timely remarks in 
the last number of the Fanciers’ Journal, I proceed at once 
to. the matter in hand. If this rejoinder to that article 
(now penned in entire good nature) does not satisfy both 
‘BR. R. W.,’’ and Mr. Lewis Wright, that Mr. G. P. Burn- 
ham understands this ‘‘Brahma”’ question (so far as he is 
concerned), I can only say those two gentlemen are very 
hard to please. p 
“BR. R. W.” takes exception to one of my ‘ Reminiscen; 
ces,’’ published in your columns, on naming the,‘‘ Brahma”? 
fowl, and quotes Wright’s Book of Poultry, pp. 248 and 
244, without giving Mr. Cornish’s letter, upon which Mr. 
Wright’s remarks there are based, but which you furnish in 
your late comments, in which letter of Cornish’s not one 
word is said about Mr. Burnham or his fowls—first or last. 
Mr. Cornish does not mention my name in said letter, and 
never did, that I know of. Mr. Wright and “F. R W.” 
both ought to have known this. Why, then, in connection 
with the Cornish letter, pick up Mr. Burnham? Why not 
Mr. Wade, or Deacon Grant, or Timothy Tinker as appro- 
priately ? 
Neither « F. R. W.” in his exceptions, or Mr. Wright in 
his book, touch the main question at issue in this contro- 
versy, strange to say—and that is, as to the time when, and 
the mode in which, this name ‘ Brahma-Pootra,’” or 
‘‘Brahma’”’ came about, and my aversion to it, and I will 
therefore explain. 
Imprimis—you will observe that J (Mr. Burnham) never 
laid any claim to this ‘‘ Brahma-Pootra”’ misnomer, J 
did not make this name. ' I then called my fowls ‘ Gray 
Shanghais,’’—never by any other name, and simply for the 
good reason that Dr. Kerr, who sent me my first pair from 

Philadelphia, September 8d, 1849, in his letter said: 
“Though they are called ‘Chittagongs’ (precisely as Mr. 
Cornish called his at first), they came into Pennsylvania 
4 
) 
7 
| 
