FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
453 
like “Bro. Pyles,” has not been as satisfactory. Wishing 
to introduce now blood into my Light Brahma strain this 
spring, and at the same time improve the stock if possible, 
I took a look through the several journals before me, and 
soon lit upon an advertisement that had the right ring to it. 
“Light Brahmas exclusively.” Hens weighing from “ten 
to twelve pounds each;” “cocks from fourteen to fifteen,” 
all prize birds , selected at the “ leading poultry shows.” The 
next mail carried my five dollars to Hartford, Conn., receiv- 
ing in return one dozen eggs — one broken. I set them 
under a careful sitter. At the end of three weeks I thought 
I would take a look at my chicks. Lifting the hen care- 
fully from the nest, so as not to injure them, I discovered 
the same eleven eggs “ unhatched." Upon examination I 
found them all infertile. I wrote him the result, and, at his 
request, sent two dollars and fifty cents for another clutch, 
directing him to pack them in a cushioned-bottom box, 
which he failed to do. On arrival, the eggs were taken out 
and pdaced under a Partridge Cochin hen sitting on the 
ground. The same result followed — nine dollars out, no 
chicks — and “sold again.” As Pyle remarks, there should 
be some way of “showing up ” the rascality of these “un- 
principled dealers,” that their trickery may be brought to 
light. I can but add one word in favor of the ever-welcome 
weekly visitor, the Fanciers’ Journal: it has become a neces- 
sity in the family, and just what all fanciers have felt the 
need of — a more “frequent visitor ” than the monthlies. It 
should receive (as I trust it does) their liberal support. 
Very truly yours, H. Parham. 
Lima, 0., July 7, 1874. 
(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
BURNHAM vs. WRIGHT. 1849 ? ’46 ? ’47? 
BY GEO. P. BURNHAM. 
The forms of things unknown , the writer’s pen 
Turns into shape; and gives to airy nothings 
A local habitation — and a name.” 
— Shakspeare. 
“Be sure you’re right , then go ahead.” 
— Davy Crockett. 
J. M. Wade, Esq : 
I ask space for an article on the “ Brahma-Pootra origin ” 
question, though I agree with you that this subject is pretty 
well played out ; but I desire to present a little fresh infor- 
mation on this topic, which I commend to the especial atten- 
tion of Mr. Lewis W right, of England, who has so strangely 
mixed me and my Gray Shanghai fowls up with liis “ Both- 
er’em-Pootrum ” nonsense, in his late two poultry books. 
Of course I cannot quote from his two ponderous volumes 
all that Wright has so erroneously and unjustly set down 
about me, but I must make a few extracts briefly from him, 
and other authorities of which he does not avail himself, for 
my present purpose, and then leave this subject to take care 
of itself in the future. My criticism of the contents of Mr. 
Wright’s works refers to the past, of course — to the period 
prior to the issue of his books in 1869 and 1872. At present, 
and for five or six j 7 ears latterly, we have all come habit- 
ually to call the Light Gray Chinese birds, “ Brahmas ; ” 
because this title has now become everywhere acceptable. 
But, regarding those former years — with the story just as it 
then existed, before him — Mr. Wright has evinced a most 
extraordinary display of error (innocently or wilfully wrong), 
which, so far as I am concerned, I desire to correct. 
In his “ Monograph of the Brahma Fowl,” published in 
1870, Mr. Wright quotes Mr. Tegetmeier’s account of the 
introduction of my Gray Shanghais into England, in 1852, 
’53, and says on page 11 : “ Mr. Burnham, it will be remem- 
bered, sent over some of the earliest Brahmas as a present 
to Her Majesty, the Queen.” Now, I never sent any 
“ Brahmas ” over to Her Majesty. I never said I did ; and 
nobody, save Mr. Wright, has said this, that I ever heard of. 
The cage of fowls I sent to the Queen was duly labelled in 
large printed capitals, “ Eight Gray Shanghais.” I wrote 
a brief note to His Royal Highness, Prince Albert, in 1852, 
for her Majesty — which Hon. Mr. Ingersoll (then American 
Minister to the Court of St. James) kindly forwarded — in 
which “ I respectfully tendered to Her Majesty a cage of 
Gray Shanghai fowls, bred from my stock imported into 
America from China, three years since;” and the Queen, 
through the Hon. Mr. Secretary Phipps, “acknowledged 
and accepted this magnificent present of Gray Shanghais.” 
Mr. Wright goes on to say, “ Mr. Burnham affirms, in 
effect, that he originated the Brahmas.” I did not use these 
words. I simply said : “ I bred these Gray Shanghais first 
in America, from my stock imported in 1849 and ’50 from 
China.” And so I did. He (Mr. W.) puts these other 
terms into my mouth — sentiments I never uttered, or thought 
of, at that time. Then, Wright affirms, on same page, “ We 
have thus two very definite statements by Mr. Burnham: 
First. That he was the founder, or original breeder, of Brah- 
mas ; and secondly, that the light variety were pure, un- 
crossed Gray Cochins!” These are Mr. Wright’s words — 
italics and all (see pp. 11, 12). To which I reply briefly 
that I had never then used the words “ I was founder,” 
“originator,” “breeder,” or “importer ” of any Brahmas; 
and that I never at any time — then, before, or since — said 
that “ the light variety were pure, uncrossed Gray Cochins.” 
I cannot prevent any one from calling my stock by any 
name they see fit ; but what I now earnestly desire is that 
Mr. Wright may not nickname my fine Gray Shanghais, 
“ Brahma-Pootras,” as he has done all through his books. 
I am not now considering what Mr. Wright may here- 
after claim that he meant , understand, or how he may change 
his language in future books, but precisely what he has said. 
Though he misquotes, garbles, and materially alters my 
language, I will not misrepresent him, knowingly. 
In his next paragraph, page 12, he says: “ Mr. Burnham 
states that the dark breed were Gray Chittagongs crossed 
with Cochins.” I never made any such statement, and you 
cannot find it on the record. It is you, Mr. Wright, who 
made every one of these statements (in this form) in your 
books, to help sustain your utterly erroneously conceived 
theory regarding what you have written about, so ignorantly. 
On this same page 12, Mr. Wright then makes an extract, 
to further prove his assumptions, from a humorous account 
quoted by me in an early poultry book of mine — which 
article I did not write, though he credits me with its author- 
ship, wrongfully — about the so-called “ Bother’em fowls 
( not Brahmas, nor Gray Shanghais),” of which humbug I 
then said, and now repeat, “never was a grosser hum per- 
petrated than this was, even in the then notorious hum of 
the hen-trade. He admits that my “ matchless effusions were, 
at that time, by many considered to settle the question, and 
by some it may be thought to do so still.” And, in this last 
sentence, I perfectly agree with Mr. Wright. But he pro- 
ceeds, in his peculiar way, immediately “to bring Mr. 
Burnham’s statements” (above referred to, which he him- 
self puts into my mouth, but which I never uttered) “ to the 
test of facts.” And how does Mr. Wright thus proceed? 
