466 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
as is possible in the individual specimen, and the judicious 
and successful'cbhn4eraction of all possible defects apparent 
or inherited ; and were we called upon to pass judgment upon 
such specimens, we should iaot consider the act of arbitration 
to consist in the amount of pleasure we should receive, but 
in the weighing or balancing of bad against good, and a 
thorough sifting of bad from good. This is our idea of 
good judging, for ' 
“ If worth be found, the worth is not so much, 
Because, like wheat in straw, it has not yet 
The value which in threshing it may get.” 
Again, we hold the theory, that the perfection of the speci- 
men does not consist so much in the number or quality of its 
good points or merits, as in the absence of its defects ; there- 
fore we should not consider that specimen the better which 
would figure highest in any scale of merits, but much rather 
the one which carries within itself the least number of de- 
fects. We are all aware that it is much easier to propagate 
virtues than to eradicate defects, and in judging of the 
quality, we think the system of judging by defects the easier 
and surer. In relation to Mr. Wright’s theory we would 
say, that we have a great respect for Mr. Wright and his 
opinions, and as far as we understand him we think his sys- 
tem is founded upon correct principles, but we do not think 
he stands in need of our assistance in advocating his ideas, 
nor are we in full accord with him in the details of his 
system. 
Mr. Feleh states that we have condemned the standard 
before its issue. In our paper we distinctly stated that we 
could not speak of the standard, because at the time we 
wrote it had not appeared; we did say, however, that the 
experience of the past gave us no encouragement, that any 
convention could either compile or revise a standard which 
would be any improvement upon its predecessors, and after 
reading the opinions which have been so freely given in our 
poultry journals in relation to the new standard, we do not 
see the necessity for us to change our ground. Mr. Feleh, 
on the contrary, claims that the new one is a decided im- 
provement upon the old, and to sustain himself, says: “In 
the old standard of excellence Dark and Light Brahmas 
were ruled by one general description, save in color, and 
both alike compelled to be judged by one and the same 
numeral scale, which to all thinking men was deemed un- 
just.” We should be ver 3 7 much obliged to Mr. Feleh if he 
will inform us who these thinking men are, whose 
sense of justice is outraged by so startling a fact. In all our 
acquaintance with poultry lore we have entirely failed to 
discover the expression of such views by any writer of note, 
even by Mr. Feleh himself, but we have in our mind a long 
list of poultry worthies, comprising such authorities as 
Hewett, Febay, Wright, Miss Watts, Mrs. Blair, and others, 
who have laid down in the most distinct terms that the 
light and dark varieties of the Brahma, in shape, style, 
and carriage, in everything except color, were identical. 
Mr. Feleh and his friends of the Convention have made a new 
departure , indeed , and discovered that “a Dark Brahma has 
no rights which a Light is bound to respect.” We think it 
will be incumbent upon the National Poultry Association to 
add an amendment to its constitution, and pass a civil rights 
bill for poultry. But, Mr. Feleh, if this is to be the rule in 
the future, why stop here? Why not carry the innovation 
to other breeds ? Surely there is as much difference in the 
several varieties of the Cochin, the Game, or the Hamburg 
as in the Brahma; why not include them, and do away with 
all classification, and “ let every tub stand upon its own 
bottom?” We do not feel at all surprised at his request 
that we should call our maternal ancestor by some other 
name, for if this idea was to be fully developed we think 
there might possibly be an entire revolution in the estab- 
lished orders of nature. It was not our intention to speak 
critically of the standard, for we have not been able to ex- 
amine it with sufficient care, and because its merits and de- 
merits have been fully discussed by others, but there are 
some points in Mr. Felch’s paper upon the subject to which 
we desire to refer. In the new standard for Light Brahmas 
the color is laid down as milk-white , and the value of this 
point is placed at ten in the scale. 
Now our idea of milk is, that it varies in color, from the 
real old sky-blue to the rich cream color so noticeable in 
the product of the Jerseys, and if the numeral 10 represents 
one of these extremes, what number will represent the other, 
or how will we get at the gradation from the one to the other ? 
We certainly cannot see any improvement in so indefinite a 
term over the old words pure white or white , and should con- 
sider it as unreliable for a guide as an east wind. Again, 
we are not able to see upon what principle big feathers 
should be required upon the middle toe of a Dark Brahma, 
when, according to Mr. Felch’s experience, it will hock 
from 15 to 20 per cent, of all the progeny, and banished from 
the light variety for the same reason. “ Oh consistency !” 
but — 
“ What’s sarse for goose is not the sarse for gander, with B. C., 
No more’n you an’ me.” 
Now let us look for a moment at the instructions to the 
judges, of which Mr. Feleh claims to be the author, and 
which he considers the crowning glory of the new standard. 
He says that the old standards were inoperative and of no 
effect, because they were not properly applied. In order to 
do justice to this statement we must go back and take a 
hasty survey of a portion of the history of the old standards 
and their application. The first effort in the direction of a 
standard of excellence was made, if we are correctly in- 
formed, by Mr. John Baily, of London, who gave the points 
and color without any numeral values. The English Poultry 
Club afterward added the numeral scale, but so little respect 
did this scale command that we are informed no respectable 
judge in England pretended that his arbitrations were in 
accord with it, nor any reliable breeder who accepted or was 
governed by its dictum. The first American standard and 
its revision were founded upon the same plan (wrongly as 
we think), and now, after the total failure of all its pre- 
decessors, the new one has not only this numeral incubus to 
carry upon its back, but it has also the additional crushing 
weight of these ridiculous and imperious instructions to sup- 
port. We know very well that the failure of all former 
standards was the inevitable result of the system upon which 
they were founded, and not from want of their application. 
We have no faith in tabulated scales, either of merits or de- 
fects, because we do not believe that merits or defects can be 
so estimated with any degree of accuracy. 
There is a subtlety in beauty which can only be felt, not 
weighed; and there is a damning influence in deformity 
which no numbers can fathom, and, therefore, Mr. Wright 
expresses our own conviction when he says : “ The eye of 
an experienced judge is worth all the standards in the world.” 
Mr. Felcli makes his instructions imperative in all cases. 
Let us look at the result: In 1870 or 1871 this system of 
summing up the points was adopted at New York, Hartford, 
