FANCIERS’ 
JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
387 

ciation, and due notice of it was given in the poultry jour- 
nals. A call appeared in the January number of the 
Poultry World signed by nearly two hundred names, many 
of them among the most prominent poultry breeders in the 
land, urging a full attendance at the Buffalo Convention, 
and requesting State and Local Associations to send dele- 
gates. 
This Convention was arranged for the same time as the 
Buffalo Poultry Exhibition, the large and attractive pre- 
mium lists of which were certain to draw exhibitors and 
visitors from all parts of the country. With all these 
advantages for securing a good representation, it was con- 
fidently expected that a large number of earnest, intelligent, 
and reliable men would be assembled, representing fairly 
and faithfully the different sections of the country, and the 
different branches of the poultry interest. Nor was this 
expectation disappointed. The most prominent and best 
known breeders of many classes of fowls were there; and if 
the public trusts these men to raise its fowls, as it certainly 
does to a large extent, why not trust them to describe them? 
If this new Convention shall be called by these dissatisfied 
parties, it would be small indeed, at least in the number of 
prominent and intelligent breeders; and those who complain 
that the other one was run by a ring, would, without doubt, 
aspire to be the ring-masters of the new one, and would 
rule orruin it. Is there any guarantee, from the past record 
of these men, that they would be more honest and impartial 
than those who composed the other Convention? Do they 
stand fairer before the business world, as capable and reliable 
men, than Estes, Wade, Williams, Todd, Warren, Church- 
man, Felch, Atwood, and many others, who were at Bufialo? 
If such men as those I have mentioned were influenced by 
self-interest, though I by no means acknowledge that they 
were, what can you expect from men who, out of petty 
jealousy, are moved to call a new Convention ? 
Mr. B. charges the Buffalo Convention with undue haste 
in the revision of the standard. Does he suppose that he 
can get active business and professional men, such as most 
of our poultry breeders are, to attend a convention, and 
remain ten days, or perhaps two or three weeks, engaged in 
this work? If he has had any experience in conventions, 
ecclesiastical, political, or any other kind, he well knows 
how hard it is to keep a considerable body of men together 
for three or four days for the transaction of the most im- 
portant business. Quite a number of the delegates to Buffalo 
were obliged to leave before the Convention closed its labors. 
But was the action at Buffalo hasty? 
An eminent minister was once asked how long it took 
him to prepare a famous sermon. He replied: ‘‘ Twenty 
years!” It embodied experiences and ideas which he was 
many years in acquiring. One may often write in an hour 
what it has required years to learn. If those men had come 
to Buffalo with little experience, and without any definite 
ideas as to what changes ought to be made, it might have 
required months to do work which was efficiently done in a 
few days. Very many of those men had, in the past, learned 
from observation and experience wherein the old standard 
was defective, and they had definite ideas as to what changes 
ought to be made, and the time which they spent at Buffalo 
was amply sufficient to make them. 
. I have said that Mr. Burnham could not hold his conven- 
tion together (even if he could once assemble it) longer than 
the one that was in session at Buffalo; and he could not 
appoint committees to report at a future time, as a body 

composed of all the men, women, and children, who wished 
to talk about fowls, as he proposes, could never be assembled 
a second time after having been once disbanded. Much 
time would be required for the ‘‘new departure’ proposed 
by your correspondent ‘*W.,’’ and this convention would feel 
called upon to make some very radical changes in order to 
justify them before the public in the amount of fault-finding 
which they have done with the old order of things; indeed, 
so radical would the changes probably be, that their work 
would be rejected by all except the few who had a hand in 
it, and their personal friends. 
It is objected to the new standard that it was adopted 
by a ‘‘select few, with closed doors, charging three dollars 
for admission fee, which, if unpaid, excluded those who 
would otherwise have joined in the debates.”—(G@. P. B.’s 
article in No, 16.) 
In an article by A. M. Halsted there is much also to the 
same effect, and several other correspondents are calling 
loudly for a free convention. Whether the National Asso- 
ciation was right in this matter I do not stop to discuss at 
present, as I shall have something to say of this again, but 
when this is urged as an objection to the new standard, it is 
a mere subterfuge, as I have not heard it alleged that any 
‘“man, woman, or child,’ whose opinion would, in any human 
probability, have been worth a farthing to the Convention, 
was excluded by this resolution. These fault-finders merely 
think it a good opportunity to appeal to the public prejudice, 
and excite a distrust of the men who were engaged in the 
revision of the standard. , 
The great hue and cry which has been raised shows plainly 
the strength and importance of the National Association 
better than anything which its friends can say about it. 
Men of business shrewdness do not fight shadows. The 
Association is large and strong enough to take care of itself, 
and if any set of men endeavor to use it merely for their 
own personal advantage, they will be at once set aside, and 
the management will be committed to other hands. As yet, 
however, I maintain nothing has been done which will in 
any way accrue to the special and personal advantage of those 
engaged in the work of revision, or their friends. I do not 
believe the officers of the National Association will pay much 
heed to this clamor, and I feel sure they will not so far yield 
to it as to call the convention demanded. I think they will 
go quietly forward, and at their next meeting make such 
changes as they deem important, and that they will do this 
from year to year until the standard is satisfactory to them- 
selves. They cannot hope that they will ever get it to suit 
every body. 
What fairness or consistency is there in this whine and 
snarl from men who did not accept the invitation and call 
of the Association last winter? Why did not these men, 
who know so much of poultry now, make known their 
views through the public journals or otherwise last winter, 
so that the Convention might have profited by their wis- 
dom? I do not assert that this present standard is perfect. 
I wrote a friendly criticism on the standard on Light 
Brahmas for the World, which has, however, not yet been 
published. But I do object to the severe and wholesale 
denunciation of the standard and the Convention by men 
who took no interest in it when invited to doso. Let the 
reading public remember that it is an easy thing to cry 
‘“ Ring,” but let it also be remembered that those who utter 
the cry have little ground for their suspicions, but only sus- 
pect better and more honorable men than themselves of 
