FANCIERS’ 
JOURNAL 
AND 
POGTEIREY EXCH A NG-H. 

OL. Lk. 
PHILADELPHIA, JULY 9, 1874. 





THE NEW STANDARD QUESTION UNSETTLED. 
SOMETHING ABOUT MILITARY TACTICS ALSO. 
Mr. Eprror: 
W. M. W. says, ‘I am tired of seeing so much of the 
valuable space taken up in the discussion of this question, 
which might be continued all summer and then be just as 
far off as at the commencement.’’? Now, I would gently 
hint to this correspondent, that though he may be tired of 
it, there are those who are not—in fact, there is a heavy 
reinforcement of fanciers who are marching to the front, 
and who will be drawn up in line of battle against this so- 
called standard abortion—this “one dollar,’’ miserable apol- 
ogy; and, who will ‘fight 1t out on this line if it takes all 
summer.” 
Again he says: ‘I have been in the military service, and 
we have had tactics from Scott, Hardee, Cameron, &c., and 
military men could always find faults in them, and it will 
be just the same if you get up another standard now.”’ 
I would here remark that I also had the honor of carrying 
a musket and knapsack during a portion of the ‘late un- 
pleasantness.”” I was drilled according to the instructions of 
these several authorities, and have read their works, but 
have failed to discover that either of these gentlemen object 
to Light Brahmas having feathers on the middle toe, and 
you cannot find it in their books. 
He says: ‘* Mr. Burnham thinks the standard ought to be 
the same for the light and dark. I think the new standard 
is nearer right, and I will tell you why. There is a differ- 
ence between them besides the color. If Mr. Burnham 
breeds them now, he may have two strains that are alike as 
to shape and form. Mine are not. I think the two differ 
very nearly as much as the Cochins and Brahmas do.”’ 
Here, again, I beg leaveto differ with W. M. W. on this 
point. I think the standard ought to be just the same in 
regard to style, form, and carriage, of both light and dark, 
and in defence of my position, will quote a line from the 
accepted authority of Mr. Wright, who, in the newly 
revised third edition of the Brahma Fowl, page 68, says: 
“In shape, style, and carriage, the dark and light varieties 
should be precisely similar.” 
I believe that the majority of the gentlemen who dis- 
cussed the merits of the question at Buffalo, were emphati- 
cally in favor of it, but were compelled to submit because 
of the stubbornness of a portion of the Committee (but for the 
benefit of W. M. W. I will here say that neither Scott, 
Hardee, nor any of these military gentlemen were among 
them). Again he says: ‘I do not propose to enter into 
this discussion, but I want to say something in regard to 
Brahmas.’’ This portion of his article reminds me of an old 
lady I once knew, who used to preface her remarks with this 
stereotyped expression peculiar to herself: ** Now, I do not 
want to say anything, but do let me talk.” I would say to 
W. M. W., that if he wishes to avoid getting into a discus- 
sion, he should not write about that which concerns others 

as well as himself. Further on he says: ‘‘I have had 
about fifty Light Brahmas hatched out this year, and nearly 
every one has been feathered down the leg to the tips of 
the outer toes, but no feathers on the middle toe. This L 
think is natural also; and this difference I think is the 
reason why the new standard was made as it is, in regard 
to the leg.” Judging from this, Mr. W. M. W.’s Light 
Brahmas do not all have feathers on the outside toes even. 
No wonder he thinks the new standard right, if he has not 
got feathers on the outside toes. He will indeed have a 
serious time before he can get any on the middle toes. What 
are considered good Light Brahmas in Philadelphia and 
vicinity, have more or less feathers on the middle toes; 
and I venture the assertion—all opinions to the contrary 
notwithstanding—that there is not a strain of good Light 
Brahmas in the United States whose best blood cannot be 
traced to Philadelphia. Now, in regard to leg feathering, 
I will quote again from Wright, on page 77, chapter 3d of 
the Brahma Fowl, third and revised edition. He says: 
“The shank ought to be short, and as well feathered as pos- 
sible, so the bird be bred honestly without showing vulture 
hock. Both the outer and middle toes should be feathered.”’ 
I think Mr. Wright’s head is level on leg and toe feather- 
ing at least. 
One more quotation from Mr. W. M. W. and I have 
done. He says: ‘I think we had better let well enough 
alone for awhile. If you get up another standard you will 
have a division and two standards, and then we shall be 
worse off than we are now.’”’ Can’t see it, Mr. W. M. W. 
We do not want Light Brahmas that have no feathers on 
their toes; neither do we want them ‘all over the color of 
milk, with some little fixing about the neck and tail.” We 
do not want any arbitrary rules for governing judges at our 
shows; in short, we do not want this standard at ‘one dol- 
lar,’’? nor at any price. We want a better one, and we will 
have it if we have to call into our service the ‘ military 
men’’ of whom you speak. Respectfully yours, 
W. E. Flower. 
SHOEMAKERTOWN, P4., June 22d, 1874. 

as + 

Mr. JosepH M. WADE. 
Dear Sir: There has appeared in the Fanciers’ Journal 
several articles against the New Standard, which, by the 
way, were not worth answering ; but the one written by A. 
M. Halsted, and published May 7 (No. 19), is one calculated 
to mislead your readers, for it is a falsehood from one end to 
the other. His opinion of the Convention I care but little 
for, but he says: ‘‘I must enter my protest as Chair- 
man of the Committee on Black Spanish, against the select 
committee’s work. In ourreport (of which I have the minutes), 
we did not describe the Black Spanish hen as black, with 
reddish metallic lustre on the back and wings.’”’ Now J have 
the original report of the committee, written by Halsted, and 
signed A. M. Halsted, Edward B. Smith, I. K. Felch. It 
reads thus: 
