450 FANCIERS’ 
Connecticut State Poultry Society for their approval, said 
delegates to have power to choose substitutes, and their ex- 
penses to be paid from the funds of the society. 
Messrs. P. W. Hudson, C. H. Crosby, and C. A. Pitkin 
were appointed the delegates; Mr. Pitkin substituting his 
brother-in-law, Mr. Wm. H. Lockwood, and those gentle- 
men were at Buffalo presuming to understand the instructions 
of the corporation which sent them there at its expense. 
Although I will say this of Mr. Crosby—he was absent 
from the meeting when he was appointed, and has since in- 
formed me that he did not know that the wording of the 
resolution required them to report the doings for approval 
to the society before binding its delegation to a revision, and 
had he known he never would have voted otherwise than 
to defer action for his society’s indorsement. Now, these 
gentlemen went straight to Buffalo and did exactly contrary 
to their instructions, and brought in their bills—forsooth 
(something over one hundred dollars)—for not doing as they 
were bid. The result we all know—no one opposing—the 
standard was made (revised?), rushed to the printers, no 
opportunity for correction, or for the supplying of omissions; 
but out it comes—Price $1—advertised far and near, and 
every other. poultryman who has bought one finds himself 
possessed of something he cannot use, is not pleased with, 
cannot breed to, and that must be born over again to get 
strength to live. Some one has written or said, ‘‘ Deliver me 
from these has beens’’ or ‘‘might have beens,’’ but the 
whole of the fiasco ‘‘might have been’’ avoided if a few of 
our wise men could have advised ‘‘ more time ”’ at Buffalo. 
I feel gratified to know, however, that in my very ear- 
nestness, even in what seemed at first a difficult minority 
work, I have so many able indorsers, kindly letters and as- 
surances of approval and esteem from my friends, old and 
new, in our fraternity, and I believe that all our seeming 
difficulties will yet be surmounted, and that the “ good time 
coming’’ is near at hand. Nevertheless, I beg leave to say 
- that while the American Poultry Association may claim for 
itself (or its particular champions for it) very much of dignity 
in its make-up, it will not satisfy the poultry fanciers of Amer- 
ica to assume too much of the high and lofty style until it 
brings out something more of real merit than it has yet 
produced. Let us show the result of our brains and science 
as well as good manners and dignity. 
long on our dignity solely. 
We cannot travel 
Yours truly, 
HARTFORD, Conn., July 6, 1874. S. J. BesTor. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
HALSTED vs. SWEET AND CHURCHMAN. 
Epitorn FANCIERS’ JOURNAL. 
Dear Srr: I had hoped not to trespass on your space, 
and on the patience of your readers again, but the remarka- 
ble statements of Mr. Sweet, in No. 28, demand a reply. I 
very much regret to see that he does not even get through 
his first sentence truthfully ; in that he claims to be actuated 
solely by a desire to place before the public a ‘fai state- 
ment”? of his side of this matter. Every candid reader will 
at once perceive that there is very little fairness about it. 
If, as he claims, he is so desirous to have the public know 
all about the circumstances, why does he not tell them that 
all this ‘suspicion’? and ‘conclusion’? was kept per- 
fectly quiet—not the least inkling allowed to reach my ears 
until they had consummated their designs? And why are 
they so careful to completely ignore and conceal the fact 
that the credentials of my associate and myself as delegates 



JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

were offered, accepted, and placed on file? They knew full 
well that had I been notified of charges being made against — 
me, and what said charges were, that when the light of 
truth was brought to bear upon them, they would melt 
away like snow under the midsummer sun. They knew, 
also, that the act they were about to do was illegal, unjust, 
unfair. 
I know of no principle in ethics or equity, by which a 
law may be retroactive; or, in other words, I have yet to 
learn how a man can become amenable for any act commit- 
ted before the passage of a law making such act an offense 
and misdemeanor. That there was no law regarding this 
assuméd offense is evident. Neither Messrs: Churchman 
or Sweet have dared to assert the contrary; but they have 
most carefully avoided all reference to the question. Mr. 
Sweet, throughout his whole letter, entirely ignores the 
assumed offense upon which they urged the action of the 
Association at the Boston meeting; and I now repeat the 
proposition contained in my former letter: 1st. That there 
was no law covering such a case. 2d. My dealings and 
connection with the Convention were in my official capacity 
as delegate, and not individually. 8d. The assumed offense 
was committed before I was a member of the Association ; 
therefore there was no cause of action. I challenge both 
Mr. Churchman and Mr. Sweet to controvert this position. 
But, to proceed further: if there was such a sincere de- 
sire to be fair and above-board about this matter—as Mr. S. 
intimates—why was not the official notice of the action of — 
the Executive Committee at Boston communicated to me at 
once?) Why was it delayed until the 19th of the month 
before mailing; fourteen days after the meeting? Does it 
not look as if the intention of these fairminded and honora- 
ble gentlemen was to prevent my protest (which they knew 
would come) from appearing in the same issue of papers 
which contained this infamous resolution ? 
The meeting took place on the 5th, at Boston. The offi- 
cial notification was mailed at Buffalo on the 19th. Fortu- 
nately, my attention was called to the matter by a friend, 
who received the doings of the Boston meeting in the form 
of a printed slip a week or more before the official notifica- 
tion was mailed to me. 
And now to answer Mr. Sweet’s letter in detail, which 1 
propose to do ‘ without gloves.’ In it Mr. Sweet has ex- 
pressed himself as willing to ‘‘submit the question of verac- 
ity between himself and me to the public,” and to that public 
I propose to leave it; asking them to remember that while — 
“Truth is violated by falsehood, it may be equally outraged 
by silence ;’’ and also, that ‘‘ Truth is established by investi- 
gation and delay—falsehood prospers by precipitancy.”’ 
The first point with which I shall take issue, is the asser- 
tion of Mr. Sweet, made to various persons at the time of ; 
the Convention, and also repeated (but in different lan- 
guage) in his letter, that the gentleman known as Mr. Geg 
B. Willis, ‘‘ was employed by me ;’’ or, as he (Mr. §.) ex-_ 
presses it, was ‘‘ his (my) stenographer.’’? The following will — 
settle that point, and also one question of veracity between — 
Mr. Sweet and myself. : 
- 
. 
New York, June, 1874. 
I hereby certify that Messrs. A. M. Halsted, Robert Reid, — 
and Geo. B. Willis, were-appointed delegates from and by — 
the New York State Poultry Society, to the Convention of 
poultry fanciers, held at Buffalo, January 15th, 1874; and — 
that Mr. A. M. Halsted, and the gentleman known as Mr. 
Geo. B. Willis, attended the Convention in such capacity, — 
and that their expenses were defrayed by the said society. 
Signed, Tuos. B. KinasLanp, Pres’t. 
e 
a 
