418 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

centre that they dare to squeal only after losing hold of its 
dug. 
Another reason for which we should congratulate the 
editor of the Fanciers’ Journal is his courage to start such a 
weekly paper. It is a glorious enterprise, since it gives to us 
just what we most need—an expeditious method of letting the 
public know what we have for sale or exchange, what new 
stock we have imported or intend to breed, without waiting 
a whole month. It makes the public familiar with the 
class of fowls we keep, so that they can send to us at once, 
without inquiring of others or looking for old advertisements. 
We are three weeks in advance of the monthlies, and, in 
fact, our stock of fowls and eggs are sold three weeks 
before the monthlies appear. One advertisement in a 
weekly is worth four in a monthly, and will reach our 
patrons three times as quick, and is brought four times as 
often before their notice. It may cost more, but what is 
that to the facilities it affords; you reap in proportion more 
benefit. The cost and labor of publishing such a paper is 
about three times more than the monthlies, and should be 
paid for accordingly ; but how much superior is it in many 
ways to the slow monthly! We should exert ourselves con- 
siderably and do our best in every way to sustain such a 
paper, since by so doing we are promoting our own interests 
at a trifling expense. We do not want to wait a month to 
learn the news in the chicken world; it is stale when it 
comes to us, and too much time has elapsed for us to take 
advantage of many things we should like to or could have 
done if we had known it sooner. The more the people 
think of this matter the better, I am satisfied, they will ap- 
preciate a weekly medium of advertising and chicken gos- 
sip. If you desire to ask any -questions, you receive an 
answer the following week, and you may have the opportu- 
nity of preserving a valuable fowl’s life, and not lose it be- 
fore you get the desired information. 
I could write at length on the advantages of such a paper, 
but when I began I simply wished to bring it to the atten- 
tion of a large class of the poultry people, who are not 
exactly pleased with things done at Buffalo, how impotent 
they would have been if it had not been for the courtesy of 
the editor of this journal. Where could you have found a 
hearing ? Yours truly, Isaac VAN WINKLE. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
THE REVISION OF THE WORK OF THE 
BUFFALO CONVENTION. 
THERE is now scarcely a handful of the poultry fanciers 
of America who pretend to indorse the new standard of 
the American Poultry Association. The only society which 
has formally indorsed the work of the Convention, is the 
Connecticut State Poultry Society, and this may be accounted 
for in the fact that it, through its members, virtually con- 
trols its publication. The only other societies which have 
acted upon the new standard, are the Bucks County—now 
the Eastern Pennsylvania Poultry Society—and Maryland 
State Poultry Association; both of which, by a unanimous 
vote, have rejected it, and abide by the wnrevised edition. 
While there are dozens to condemn and criticise it, there 
seem to be none so poor to do it honor. The few faint apol- 
ogies in defence of the work, are more to be remarked for 
their unstinted praise of the members of the Association, 
than for any commendation of the book or explanations of 

its defects. As to the members of the Association—leaving 
out a few of the leaders, who are responsible for this abor- 
tion—they are acknowledged by all who know them, to 
comprise many of the most respectable and reliable fanciers 
of the country; but, under the advice of bad counsellors, 
their labors came to nought. It is now an accepted fact, 
by the masses of the fanciers of America, and one which it. 
is useless longer to disguise or repress, that no revision of 
the standard by the American Poultry Association, under its 
present Board of Officers, will be acceptable to the poultry 
fraternity of this country. There must be a new deal before 
the work is again undertaken. 
Nothing but the grossest incompetence, or the most repre- 
hensible carelessness—probably both—could allow a book, 
in which the most perfect accuracy was imperative, to come 
from the press in the shape and condition in which this new 
standard was thrown upon the country. This book (or 
pamphlet) with its multitudinous errors, would be a disgrace 
to a fourth-rate country job printing office; but, when 
issued by a firm or party who pride themselves on accuracy 
and fine work, and that too, under the supervision of men 
who laud and eulogize themselves and their coadjutors as 
the guardians of ‘‘the honor and integrity of the Associa- 
tion,’’ it is more than disgraceful. Such dereliction of duty 
is unpardonable. The Association, by the carelessness and 
incompetency of its officers, is held responsible for this buar- 
lesque, and every member is thus held up to the sneers and 
ridicule of the breeders of America and England. Whata 
grand and honorable position the Association has assumed 
in the eyes of the poultry-loving world! 
Already, Mr. Lewis Wright has most severely criticised 
the new standard in the Fanciers’ Gazette, and others of 
the English press are commenting in no flattering terms 
upon ‘the result of a most slovenly carelessness in revision.” 
Even among our own journals it receives no praise. The 
editor of the most prominent Western poultry paper says: 
‘‘ We confess to a keen feeling of disappointment in this 
work. The old standard was bad enough, but this is worse; 
and from the numerous letters we have received from all 
parts of the country —many of which are pleased to denounce 
the thing as “‘ a swindle’’—we are led to conclude, that, in 
the words of one of America’s humorists ‘ as a success, it is 
a failure.” 
Now, who are the members of the Association to hold 
responsible for this burden of odium and disgrace that has 
fallen upon the society ? 
lication.’’ Of this committee, two gentlemen (Messrs. Wade 
and Estes) were not given any opportunity of correcting 
any errors, and they have explicitly stated that their names 
were published as having compared the proofs with the 
original minutes, without their knowledge or consent. 
There are, therefore, four left to charge with this most 
shameful dereliction of duty: Messrs. Churchman, Sweet, 
Lockwood, and Stoddard. What excuses they have to offer 
in mitigation of this insult to their brother fanciers, I leave 
for them to state. As it is, we are either without an Amer- 
ican standard, or we must take up with the old one until a 
better is framed and adopted. It is proposed by some to 
call for another revision. If this is done, by all means let 
it be done under the auspices of the A. P. A. It would be 
bad policy to call another convention, perfectly independent 
of the last The effect would be two editions, or rather 
two standards, and a division of the poultry fraternity, 
which would result in innumerable and endless bickerings 
I answer, ‘‘ the Committee of Pub-- 
a 
7 ee 
