578 
FANCIER S’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
shall find it of very sudden growth. When we first met 
him at the hotel, and shook hands with him, he was as 
buoyant as a boy, and as full of spirits as a whisky barrel 
(we speak of course comparatively), since down East they 
are restricted by the blue laws to water for a beverage, and 
that is very brackish, on account of the infernal number of 
stone of which the subsoil is made up. He came to the 
meeting, Yankee-like, filled full of questions to put to the 
respective “ triflers,” while they were delivering their views 
to the committee ; but that “ trifling ” fellow Van Winkle, 
disposed of his questions so easily, and with his oily tongue 
so pacified our mutual friend, that he glided down in his 
easy chair so composedly, that you would have thought that 
everything was serene. But this somnambulistic condition of 
our friend did not last long. Those “empty and trivial ” 
fellows who went to the meeting “only to get notoriety by 
raising a fuss,” had a resolution passed to empower a com- 
petent person as editor, to clothe the same in proper and uni- 
form language, and that the standard thus compiled shall 
be submitted to a general meeting of the American Poultry 
Association. This resolution seems to have taken the ten- 
derloin out of the World’s beefsteak. Tho printing and 
publishing of the standard was, no doubt, a big thing for 
the Hartford couplet, and it was a matter of not the slightest 
consequence to them, as long as it paid, whether it was good 
for anything or not. I shall not take up any more room 
of your paper to show what these “triflers” have accom- 
plished. All those who have read the proceedings of the 
meeting in New York, in any other paper than the World, 
will discover that their labors were not in vain. 
Trifler. 
THE AMERICAN POULTRY ASSOCIATION 
MEETING AT NEW YORK. 
Editor Fanciers’ Journal. 
Dear Sir : I received a few days since, the August num- 
ber of the Poultry Woi'hl, and on page 167, I find an edito- 
rial headed as above, in which the writer seems to wantonly 
insult gentlemen who have chosen to differ with himself in 
their opinion of the work of the Buffalo Convention. 
Unless the writer of the editorial in question wishes to 
be understood, as claiming to know more about what is re- 
quired to frame a correct standard, than any one else among 
the fraternity (a claim which he will find indorsed but by 
very few, and to which, the manner in which he discharged 
his responsibility, as one of the publishing committee of the 
late comic edition of the standard, proves his unfitness) ; he 
is hardly justified in insulting those who were old and suc- 
cessful fanciers long before he was out of his swaddling 
clothes. He says : 
“The objectors to the standard, who did not attend at 
Buffalo, showed by the emptiness and trivialness which 
characterized much of what they said, that their disposition 
was rather to get notoriety by raising a fuss, than to really 
improve the work ; while the earnest spirit of those present, 
who also labored at Buffalo, showed that the prospects of a 
satisfactory revision depended mainly on them.” 
I hardly think Messrs. Bestor, Van Winkle, Burnham, 
Flower, and others, will feel complimented by the imputa- 
tion to them of motives of which the writer himself is far 
from guiltless. 
That the objections were far from being trivial, is shown 
by the readiness with which every request of the opposition 
was acted upon by the Executive Committee at its July 
meeting. The very fact of the changes asked for being con- 
ceded, proves that the views advanced by the opposition, 
were regarded by the Executive Committee as neither 
“ trivial ” nor meaningless. And surely these gentlemen 
are better qualified to judge, than one who evidently decides 
according to his personal wishes, rather than from any con- 
victions of right or justice. 
I must further say, that “the prospects of a satisfactory 
revision depend,” not upon those who neglected their duty 
after the Buffalo Convention, but upon the earnest spirit of 
those who attended the Metropolitan Hotel meeting, re- 
solved to conciliate all opposing elements, and by a fair and 
liberal course of action — disregarding the few antagonistic 
members to unite all the fraternity in the one praiseworthy 
purpose of making the future of the American Poultry Asso- 
ciation all that its most ardent advocates might wish for. 
The tendency of the editorial, a portion of which is above 
quoted, is to check this growth of good feeling towards the 
American Poultry Association, and, unless the writer’s in- 
tention is to undo the good work of the July meeting (so far 
as lies in his power), it will be well and wise for him to 
avoid hereafter, any such uncalled for, unjust, and unseemly 
criticisms. Yours truly, “Dixi.” 
August 15th, 1874. 
®§P“ A correspondent of the Field says : “ One day I no- 
ticed a flock of eleven pure Crevecceur chickens very bad 
with what is called gapes. I remarked to the man who had 
them in charge, that he would not have many chickens out 
of that lot. 1 Oh, never mind,’ said he ; 1 1 have got a cure 
for them from a neighboring woman, which is a common 
half-penny tallow candle, melted and mixed into a quart of 
oatmeal stirabout.’ The remedy was resorted to, and the 
Crevecoeurs have every one recovered and grown into finely- 
developed chickens. I have since tried this cure with in- 
variable success on Brahmas, Dorkings, etc.” 
In an article on experiments in cookery, a writer in 
Frazer’s Magazine says: “The report of our experiences 
elicited a suggestion on the part of one distinguished alike 
for classical and culinary lore that it would be well to test 
the qualities of ass flesh. Accordingly, a donkey who had 
attained the mature age of six was purchased and carefully 
fattened for the space of three months, till it became quite 
a pleasure to pay our daily visits and poke him profession- 
ally in the ribs as he put on yet more and more flesh. At 
last came the day of doom. He was pronounced perfect, 
was duly slaughtered, and the series of experiments com- 
menced. The day after his decease his brains were eaten 
with unmixed satisfaction, and the liver proved superior to 
that of calf. All this was well, but our anxiety was more 
about the joints, so when it had hung a week, we ventured 
on a culotte d ’ ane braisee a la jardiniere , which proved so 
attractive, that on the next day we boldly attacked a roast 
sirloin — pure and simple. We felt at once that we had our 
reward. There was no hesitation about it. Not only did 
roast donkey prove very superior to horse, but without a 
dissentient voice we placed it above beef. The meat was 
very dark and rich looking, and fully performed its prom- 
ise. There was a slight suggestion of venison about it, and 
the undercut was simply superb. Our early investigations 
having thus been completely crowned with success, it was 
decided that the second sirloin should form the central point 
of a banquet, whose general character might be described 
as asinine.” 
