FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
451 
I will here state that the gentleman in question was a 
stranger to me ; that I met him for the first time the day 
before leaving New York for Buffalo; that he was there 
introduced to me as Mr. Geo. B. Willis, who was to be my 
associate at Buffalo — Mr. Reid being unable to go. 
That Mr. Willis was a stenographer has never been 
denied ; and I know of no reason why a stenographer may 
not be a delegate to a poultry convention, as well as a mer- 
chant or a farmer. The next point at issue is Mr. Sweet’s 
statement that I said that “ Mr. Estes was quite old and not 
quick enough to write up the Convention, and desired him 
(Halsted) to do so for the Bulletin.” This I pronounce 
unqualifiedly false — I said no such thing. The following 
will explain my instructions — the substance of which was 
what I told Mr. Sweet. 
New York, June 19th, 1874. 
Mr. A. M. Halsted, Rye, N. Y. 
Dear Sir: In answer to yours of the 16th inst., I would 
say that either Mr. Willis or yourself were requested by me 
(as Secretary of Associated Fanciers), to obtain for me 
while at the Buffalo Convention as delegates from the New 
York State Poultry Society, a verbatim copy of the proceed- 
ings of said Convention, for the use of the Bulletin; on the 
supposition that the convention was to be open to all having 
proper credentials; never for an instant supposing it was to 
be a close corporation. 
Very truly yours, Wm. L. Darling, 
Sec’y and Treas. Associated Fanciers. 
It was perfectly understood before we left New York 
City, that Mr. Estes was to write up the show of the Western 
New York Poultry Society, and to look out for the inter- 
ests of the Bulletin in regard to subscriptions and advertise- 
ments ; but that any report of the Convention was to be 
taken by myself and Mr. Willis. 
The third point at issue is the statement that the table 
furnished by Mr. Sweet “ was placed at his (my) request 
in a remote and out-of-the-way place in the room.” 
The room in which the Convention was held was probably 
three times as long as its width. The table at which sat the 
President and Secretary was about one-third the length from 
one end of the room. About the middle of the room was 
placed the first tier of seats, arranged crosswise, and proba- 
bly about eight or ten tiers deep. The table at which Mr. 
Willis and myself were seated was on the left (looking down) 
of the third tier of seats. A number of gentlemen who 
were present are willing to corroborate this statement. This 
is the “ out-of-the-way place ” which this /air-minded gentle- 
man would have the public believe I occupied. 
I wish here to call the attention of the public to the fact 
that there was nothing secret in this matter. But that Mr. 
Sweet was asked for a table for the purpose of taking notes. 
Every movement on my part being open and above-board, 
and every move of these two gentlemen (Messrs. Churchman 
and Sweet), against me, was kept concealed. 
“ The man who dares traduce because he can 
With safety to himself, is not a man.” 
The fourth point to which I refer does not concern me, 
but I cite it merely to bring forward more prominently this 
question of veracity between Mr. Sweet and myself. He 
(Mr. S.) says: “The President called the attention of the 
delegates to the resolution, &c., and said, as presiding 
officer,* he should be obliged to enforce the rules,” &c., and 
“ it would be his duty to expel such person.” Mr. Church- 
man, after calling attention to the rules, said: “ If any 
person , other than the Secretaries , is found taking minutes, 
* The words “ as presiding officer,” were not used. 
I will expel niM ! ” If needs be, I will bring three or 
more persons, besides myself, to make affidavit to this state- 
ment, and, I will say here, that throughout the whole session 
at which I was present, the tone of these two gentlemen 
was of this same offensive character, “I, I,” as if they 
owned and controlled the Convention. 
The fifth point is the matter already referred to in my 
communication in No. 17 of this Journal, viz., the state- 
ments of both Messrs. Sweet and Churchman, that I “ had 
received no telegram from home,” &c. 
The public, who are to be the judges in this matter (and 
not Messrs. Sweet and Churchman), will please read the fol- 
lowing, and then decide for the fifth time upon this question 
of veracity : 
Rye, N. Y., June 13, 1874. 
Dear Sir : 
While attending the Convention of the Poultry Fanciers 
at Buffalo, in January last, I received a telegram from my 
wife, at Rye, N.Y., requesting me to return home. After I 
had left Buffalo, it was publicly denied in the Convention 
that I had received any telegram, and asserted that I had 
left for other reasons, not creditable to my standing as a 
member and a gentleman. Will you please state, by letter, 
that, on the sixteenth of January last, a telegram was re- 
ceived from Rye, N. Y., directed to A. M Halsted, and that 
said telegram was delivered to me at St. James’s Hall that 
afternoon, and the time of delivery, if you can give it? 
Yours respectfully, 
Supt. Western Union Tel. Co., Buffalo, N.Y. A. M. Halsted. 
To which I received the following reply : — 
Dear Sir : 
The message above referred to was delivered to you in 
person at St. James’s Hall, at 2 20 P. m., January 16. We 
have your receipt therefor. Very truly, 
J. W. Tillinghakt, 
Buffalo, June 15, 1874. Agent U. P. T. Co. 
As to the matter of Mr. Willis receiving a telegram, ad- 
dressed in another name, I know nothing of it, except by 
hearsay. Neither do I know anything about his being 
called away or the cause thereof. I do know, however, that 
the gentleman in question registered his name in full at the 
Mansion House, where it can be found by those inquisitive 
enough to go and see. 
To still further expose the unfairness of Mr. S., I call atten- 
tion to second column, page 354, 8th line from top — Journal 
of June 4th — “ A gentleman connected with the Conven- 
tion,” &c. Again about the middle of same column, “A 
member of the Executive Committee who was present at 
Buffalo,” &c. That gentleman and that member was Wm. H. 
Churchman. And now, if the public can find any one 
who had anything to do with this outrageous transaction 
except these two parties, they can see further through a 
millstone than I can. It is Churchman and Sweet, Sweet 
and Churchman from beginning to end, and every candid 
reader will bear me out in “ objecting to the tribunal as in- 
competent.” It was worse than incompetent, it was vindic- 
tive and unscrupulous. The whol ecase was pre-judged, and 
I reiterate my charge that it was a trumped-up affair. 
The assumed offense was “ the introduction of a member 
under a fictitious name at the January session of the Asso- 
ciation.” But nowhere is this alluded to as a cause of action. 
Mr. Sweet, with characteristic fairness , entirely evades 
every point on which the public wish light, and after shirk- 
ing every point at issue, has the sublime “ cheek” to add: 
“ I may be permitted to say that, in my opinion, he who 
objects to such a jury, and would endeavor to shield himself 
