FANCIERS’ 
JOURNAL 
AND 
POULTRY HXCHANGEH. 
won. ‘L, 
PHILADELPHIA, JUNE 28, 
1874. No. 26. 

—— 
(Yor Fanciers’ Journal.) 
NOTES FROM THE NORTHWEST. 
No. 1. 
JoszepH M. Wants, Esq. 
Dear Sir: There is not a poultry paper published in this 
country I do not take, and when they are received they are 
earefully read. I read them, not only because they are a 
source of diversion to my mind, but also because I consider 
this one of the greatest means of making the fancier or 
breeder of poultry successful in his pursuit. 
The multiplicity of fanciers at the present time in this 
country, and the success of many comparatively young 
breeders, as is shown by the many good birds bred, exhibited, 
and sent out over the country by this class of breeders, is 
certainly due largely to the influences of the periodicals 
published upon that subject. 
Among those which I read, and consider useful as well as 
ornamental to my library, the Fanciers’ Journal stands sec- 
ond to none. Iam glad its visits are so often as once a week, 
for I greet its coming as a ‘‘ season of refreshing.” 
Among its contents that have been so interesting to me, 
are the discussions, pro and con, upon the proceedings of the 
National Poultry Association. 
I think I stand with a large number of those who, as 
fanciers that cannot in point of time engaged in the pursuit, 
claim to rank with the ‘‘ oldest breeders’ of the country, 
feel that they have learned something of ‘‘ how the thing is 
done,’’ and have a deep interest, not only so far as it concerns 
them individually, but also as it concerns the poultry frater- 
nity collectively, in the welfare of the cause, and who look 
with no little jealousy upon anything, come from whom it 
may, that in its tendency serves to mar the harmony which 
is essential, and may exist among breeders generally, to create 
adverse factions (for in this as in all co-operative systems, 
“ unity is strength ’’), or that will tend to bring a pursuit, 
so legitimate and important in itself, into disrepute with the 
public at large. 
My attention has been specially arrested this morning by 
the article in your Jowrnal from the pen of G. C. Athole in 
his brief but telling reply to the leader and seemingly most 
conspicuous character in the agitation upon the proceedings 
of the Buffalo Convention, Mr. G. P. Burnham. 
Looked at from a‘ charitable point of view, it may seem 
harsh, but practically it appears to me to be “‘right to the 
point.” Ihave no sympathy with him who says he con- 
siders the doing of that Convention entirely what the people 
want, and is not willing to acknowledge that it made mis- 
takes, and I see that such was the general disposition of that 
body I should feel justified in repudiating them as authority, 
and the standard of their production. But so far as I have 
. seen and heard, and read, I believe that quite the contrary 
disposition is manifested by those gentlemen, therefore treat 
their doings upon their merits, not from a spirit that would 

hold them up to the public as unworthy (notwithstanding 
their acknowledged mistake), that some confidence in their 
honesty of purpose that was generally felt among poultry 
men at the time the Convention was about to convene. 
On the other hand, while I can see in the criticisms of 
their doings an unmistakable evidence that such criticisms 
emanate from a desire to help correct mistakes that have been 
made, rather than to ‘‘ cry down”’ those who may have hur- 
riedly, accidentally, or unintentionally made them, I feel 
that all consistent men will indorse such, and the suggestions 
of such should be thankfully received by the fraternity of 
fanciers. 
For one I cansee some improper things that were done by 
the Convention, according to my views, and the views of 
those who have pointed out those things through the poultry 
papers, but I am not ready to see fanciers kick those who 
composed that Convention overboard, and come out under 
the head of ‘‘a new departure,’’ until they are satisfied that 
the desired ends cannot be obtained through the present 
recognized American Poultry Association. There is no 
reason as yet to think so, but, in my humble judgment, 
from all I can gather through the published and private 
correspondence, there is every reason to think that the work 
of producing a ‘‘standard”’ with improvements such as are 
necessary, and with corrections of the present edition’s mis- 
takes, may be done harmoniously and satisfactorily through 
the recognized Association, and without any need of ‘sore- 
head” and ‘‘ discontented ”’ and ‘‘ no axe to grind’’ conven- 
tions. 
I have not any desire in indorsing the sentiment of Mr. 
Athole’s letter to underestimate Mr. Burnham’s ability and 
experience in this direction, nor would I, if I could, restrict 
the influence of his productions upon this question, so far as 
they are in fact and tendency correct, but only wish to add 
my voice to the number who have spoken upon the subject, 
and say: ‘* Gentlemen, don’t go too fast; take things coolly ; 
don’t be deluded, my young fancier friend, into following the 
counsel ‘of those who are continually prating about their 
being ‘old breeders,’ or who have bored us to death with the 
assurance that they ‘have no axe to grind.’ ” 
Look the facts squarely in the face and judge them, not 
prejudices, nor the plausible reasonings of easy writers. Ask 
yourselves the question ‘ Who are the men that made up 
this, by some, misjudged Convention; what is the reputa- 
tion of them at home, and what abroad, among those with 
whom they have dealt so long? What is their ability as 
evinced by birds of their production? How will these things 
compare with those who come forward in the ‘ Simon-pure ’ 
style, and ask you to repudiate without a fair trial the men 
who have given no reason for you or me to think did not 
honestly do what they then thought was most conducive to 
the welfare of the cause they were engaged in, and who are 
men, even if inclined to, that would be too discreet to attempt 
to force upon a society of men scattered from Maine to Cali- 
