FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
419 

and jealousy. But, can a ‘‘ convention” give us a standard 
which will be acceptable to American breeders ? 
Mr. Wright says, in a late number of the Fanciers’ Gia- 
_zetie: ‘The usual plan has been for one or more individuals 
to sit down at a table, and with more or less reflection, 
decide what they think ‘ought’ to be the value of the 
various points. The result alone proves to our mind the 
inutility of such a system. The absurdity of fixing a scale 
of points at ‘conventions,’ becomes, in fact, almost self- 
evident upon consideration. 
“It must be done somewhat in this way: Hither an old 
scale or a new one is submitted asa basis by some one of 
the number. Then the values must be discussed; and one 
thinks some point ‘ ought’ to have more value given it than 
the draft scale allots; while another, perhaps, thinks it 
‘ought’ to have less; and a third, perhaps, thinks it will 
do as itis. At last it is settled somehow, what the value of 
this point shall be, either by some giving way, or by a 
majority, or by striking an average; and so at last a scale 
is made. . . . We only add here, that any scale at all, can 
only be expected to harmonize with honest and consistent 
judging, the want of which (the consistency more than the 
honesty is in our mind) is the great difficulty in framing 
it. We want a recognized standard of opinion before we can 
get one of figures.” 
In fact, before we can frame a standard and scale of 
points, which shall be arbitrary in their application, we 
must have more good judges. A convention then is not an 
immediate necessity. We need to discuss this matter very 
fully before any ‘‘convention’’ can act upon it satisfactorily 
and intelligently. It has already, and will again be found 
simply impossible to keep any set of men together a suffi- 
cient time to properly perform the work before them. There 
.seems but one way out of this difficulty, and that is to dis- 
cuss the matter in detail, through the columns of our poul- 
try journals; and, as the Fanciers’ Journal comes to us 
weekly, whereas the others only reach us monthly, it follows 
that the Journal is the paper best suited for that purpose. 
There are hundreds of breeders throughout the United 
States and Canada, who are entitled to a voice in this mat- 
ter, whether they be members of the A. P. A: or not; and, 
as the majority could or would not leave home to attend a 
convention, I would suggest a way to get their opinions 
for the use of a convention. A preliminary meeting might 
perhaps be called for appointing a committee or committees 
to prepare the matter. But the session of the convention 
for the adoption of astandard, &c., should not be called 
until late in the winter, if as soon as then. Commence the 
publication in the Fanciers’ Journal of the standard as it 
now reads, commencing in No. 27, with Light Brahmas, and 
invite criticisms from all interested, which would be pub- 
lished in No. 29, thus allowing ample time for thought and 
reflection. Not only this, but announce in advance the 
issues in which the various descriptions, &c. would be pub- 
lished, and also in which numbers the discussion or criti- 
cisms would appear. Begin, say with No. 27, description 
of Light Brahmas and scale of points; No. 28, Dark Brah- 
mas; No. 29, description of Buff Cochins, and criticisms on 
Light Brahmas; No. 30, Partridge Cochins, and criticisms 
on Dark Brahmas; No. 81, White Cochins, and criticisms 
on Buff; No. 32, Black Cochins, and criticisms on Par- 
tridge, and soon, In this way, by the time it is expedient 
to hold another convention, we shall have accumulated a 
mass of opinions and criticisms to lay before the various 

committees, which cannot fail to denote with considerable 
accuracy, the ideas of breeders on the several specialties. 
Our fanciers must at least have learned the necessity of 
making haste slowly; and now that they have been so rudely 
awakened to the truth of the proverb, may they go forward 
steadily and advisedly, without giving ear to the bad coun- 
sel of demagogues and would-be authorities of mushroom 
growth in the fancy. A. M. Hatsrep. 

> 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
HOW CARELESS READERS ERR. 
Mr. Epitor: 
It seems to my view, in looking over all the pros and cons 
published in the Fanciers’ Journal and elsewhere about the 
new A. P. A.’s standard, that readers often misconstrue the 
intent and phraseology of many of the criticisms offered by 
contributors, and too frequently incline to ‘strike back,”’ 
either at these writers, or in favor of the individuals or men 
who attended the Buffalo Convention where this standard 
had its birth. 
In the course of this discussion, very naturally some power 
or body must be referred to by writers in their criticisms, 
but I do not yet see that any particular persons are assailed 
in this controversy, as a rule, by your correspondents. As 
Mr. Burnham suggests, in his last article on this subject, it 
is hardly fair, and it is certainly not necessary, that any one 
man should feel aggrieved by these general strictures upon 
the Convention’s work, when it is apparent that all writers, 
for or against this pamphlet, show some good and sufficient 
reasons why it is clearly open to criticism ; and the Secretary 
of the A. P. A. himself admits that it contains errors, which 
the Association is ready and desirous to have discussed and 
corrected at the earliest opportunity. 
The efforts of one or two writers, and one New England 
Poultry Society, latterly, to bolster up the A. P. A., and 
‘©express confidence” by ‘‘ resolves’’ as to the ‘ highminded 
and honorable” gentlemen who compose the A. P. A., seem 
to me to be both gratuitous and in bad taste, because I do 
not believe any of us have any other opinion of those gen- 
tlemen; and no one has yet written (that I have seen) that 
all this is not true. There can be no doubt that, as an asso- 
ciation of poultry fanciers, these gentlemen are quite up to 
or above the average as good citizens, and none of them, J 
believe, care to be thus ‘‘ plastered ’’ by anybody. 
There is no need of this. The A. P. A. is all right, and 
the Buffalo Convention unquestionably meant well. If they 
made mistakes in this standard affair, and are anxious to 
correct them, where is the utility or necessity of changing 
the issues from this simple fact, and getting up a different 
controversy as to the character of individuals concerned, 
either in the main discussion, or as to the manner of redress? 
It seems to me that if the comments of writers upon both 
sides are pointed to the principal and the real question, viz.: 
as to the merits and demerits of this book itself, as we now 
have it before us, we shall do each other better justice, and 
reach the actual point aimed at much more directly than by 
‘‘going round Robin Hood’s barn,’”’ to drag in either indi- 
vidual’s or society members’ reputations as makeweighbts for 
our arguments. “CoMMon SENSE. 

p@=> A lady in Carlisle, Penn., has a pair of geese that chip- 
ped the shell in 1838, and therefore will have only four years 
to wait before they will be fit for the boarding-house table. 
