
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL 
AND : 
Ot HRY Tx HAN GH. 
VoL. T 
PHILADELPHIA, JULY 23, 1874. 
No. 30. 

VERITAS ODIUM PARIT.* 
Friend WADE: 
I am really glad the communication of ‘*W. M. W.” 
has been so well answered, and by so good an authority as 
Mr. Flower. I must acknowledge that of all the Light 
Brahmas I have yet owned, those hatched from eggs ob- 
tained from your yards, are far ahead in excellence, are 
beautifully marked, splendid hackled necks, profusely feath- 
ered legs, with feathers also on middle toes, which in my 
estimation increases their value, with evén the ‘new stand- 
_ ard” and the ‘‘ten years’ experience” of ‘‘W. M. W.” to 
_the contrary, notwithstanding. 
I notice with regret, that 
Mr. Lockwood, in his review or reply to Mr. Halsted’s ar- 
ticle (in No. 19) has introduced personalities, which in this 
standard controversy, I regard as utterly unnecessary and 
uncalled for. I certainly am unable to discover in Mr. H.’s 
article, anything to merit such a reply, or attack. Such 
personal allegations afford but a weak mode of defence, and 
the public will not from such essays be won over to the 
‘advocacy and support of a cause which the public verdict has 
pronounced an ‘“ abortion.”’ 
If this ‘ Billingsgate”’ is really necessary to solace the 
“standard” in its dying struggle, would it not have come 
in better taste from some one less interested in the one dollar 
publication! It is indeed proceeding from bad to worse, if 
the character of one of the fraternity can be thus ruthlessly 
assailed, and the valuable space in our Journal occupied 
with matter foreign to the question at issue. 
diced reader cannot but admit, that the standard is indeed 
faulty beyond redemption, unless re-revised, and it would 
be wisdom on the part of those interested, frankly to ac- 
knowledge the truth, and gracefully do all in their power 
to correct the errors so manifestly existing, even if they 
“are just as the committee wrote them.” Do this, then let 
us have peace, and a standard of unquestioned value. 
Yours, &c., 7 GO. B. 
Any unpreju- 
BROOKLANDVILLE, Mp. 
[The eggs mentioned by Mr. Brown were the last ones 
sent out from the ‘‘Oak Lane Poultry Yards,” prior to the 
entire lot of Light Brahma fowls sold to Thos. L. McKeen, 
Easton, Pa. 73 
In our remarks on the Lockwood letter, last week, we 
omitted to state that we received said letter via Claymont, 
Del. It was addressed in the handwriting of Wm. H. 
Churebman, President of the American Poultry Association, 
and we took it for granted that it had received his careful 
consideration.—ED. } 

MR. FELCH AND THE BUFFALO CONVENTION. 
‘“And the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.” 
Mr. Epiror: 
When we placed in your hands our review of the Buffalo 
Convention, we were not so simple as to suppose that all our 
views would be accepted by the gentlemen who participated 

* Truth often causes hatred. 

in its meetings, nor did we anticipate the necessity for any 
further remarks from us upon the subject. But in the 
Poultry World for May and June, are two papers by Mr. 
Felch, in which he attempts a defence of the action of the 
Convention, and makes some statements which seem to claim 
more than a passing notice. In charging us with pretend- 
ing to be “leaders of poultry,’’ we think he must have 
drawn somewhat upon his imagination, and when he styles 
our review as uncalled for, unjust, untrue, and void of all 
Christian charity, we submit the question whether Mr. Felch 
has not himself gone outside of Christian charity. We are 
not aware of the advancement, on our part, of any claims to 
leadership of any kind, or in any direction, but on the con- 
trary have always contented ourselves with our interest in 
the ‘‘ fancy,”’? and our endeavor to keep ourselves posted in 
all that pertains thereto; we have, however, always enter- 
tained the opinion, that, when a meeting, call it caucus, 
convention, or what you will, was convened for a public 
purpose, any criticism of its action was neither ‘uncalled 
for ’’? nor ‘‘ unjust,’’ provided always, that its action was open 
to such criticism, and if we felt that the necessities of the 
case required or demanded an adverse judgment, we are not 
able to see.that such judgment must of necessity be either 
‘‘untrue,’’ or void of ‘all Christian charity.’’ 
Towards the National Poultry Association we are un- 
conscious of hostility, but when it assumed to convene 
for a special object, which in its application, affected the 
whole poultry interest of the country, and opened its meet- 
ings with so much bombast and bad grammar, and so 
signally failed either to appreciate or improve its opportu- 
nity, we deemed it perfectly right and proper, that a free 
expression of the views of any one who chose to advance 
them, should be made. In so doing, we did not for a 
moment conceive that we were trespassing upon any private 
rights, or running atilt against the private opinion of any 
individual. But Mr. Felch seems somewhat disturbed by 
our remarks, and thinks we are ‘“ grieved and sore,’’ because 
our ‘pet theory ’’ was not adopted, or ‘‘ everything done in 
Mr. Wright’s way.” Now we are not aware of holding any 
“net theory,’’ nor are we conscious that any theory of ours 
was presented to the Convention. We hold opinions upon 
the subject of a standard, and so does every thinking person 
who is at all interested in poultry, but we have never sought 
to force them upon unwilling auditors. We did expect, 
however, and the poultry men of the country had a right to 
expect, that « convention composed of so much intelligence, 
would have given a thorough exposition of all modern or 
new ideas on the subject of standards and methods of judg- 
ing, instead of serving up to them such a rehash of the dis- 
carded and musty rubbish of 1865 or 1871. We do not 
believe any animal, of whatever kind, be it horse, dog, or 
fowl, was ever created absolutely perfect, and we hold the 
theory, that the mystery of good breeding of such animals, 
consists in the accumulation of as many good points or merits 
sf 
