650 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
shown and given the proofs of fully in the paper referred to, 
and which I hope will be copied by you. I have no other 
alternative. I have no cause to dislike the letter, hut publish 
it gladly now Mr. B. gives me leave. I confess I am sur- 
prised at the permission ; but he is by character and instinct 
unable to see, I presume, that such a letter cannot possibly 
damage the one to whom it is addressed ; hut may the writ- 
er, considerably. 
For full proof of all I have now stated, I again refer to 
my detailed replies. I have in them stuck to the point, and 
only regret that Mr. Burnham’s unscrupulous mode of at- 
tack has necessitated now statements of fact, and quotations, 
which I would gladly have been spared, and some of which 
will be found, in the light of his recent assertions, rather 
startling. 
L. Wright. 
September 28, 1874. 
THE WORLD’S “IRRESPONSIBLE CORRES- 
PONDENT.” 
Almost immediately after the meeting of the Executive 
Committee of the A. P. A., in New York, in July last, an 
article appeared in the Poultry World, under no name or 
signature whatever characterizing Messrs. Bestor, Burnham, 
and Van Winkle, as attending thatmeeting for the sole pur- 
pose of “ seeking notoriety,” and “getting up a fuss that 
our manner was very “ ostentatious,” and our remarks very 
“ trivial and, in fact, that we were nothing but “ trillers.” 
How much the World was justified in this sort of criticism I 
can only judge by the decision of the Committee, and the 
handsome manner in which the above named gentlemen were 
invited to join the Association. The anonymous writer of 
the article in th a Poultry World knew full well whom he had 
in view when he wrote that article ; the very gentlemen he 
intended to reach by it ; and, that it was he who so politely 
characterized them under the nom de guerre, “triflers.” 
With what reason can he complain if he should be answered 
under the name with which he had baptized them? “Tri- 
fler,” therefore, was not an irresponsible correspondent. He 
was not responsible for his name, I admit, but quite re- 
sponsible in every other respect ; and still holds himself as 
such to the World , or to its anonymous correspondent, at 
any time and place. I shall leave it to the public judgment 
to say who seeks the “cowardly method ” to sneak oft' un- 
der a “ non de plume.” This may be Connecticut French; 
but in New Jersey we write it “ nom de plume.” I would 
advise the World, before it attempts to get up a little vir- 
tuous indignation for the sympathy of its readers, that it 
should itself show a less “ cowardly and sneaking ” way of 
attacking gentlemen who never did it harm, but rather en- 
couraged its success, simply to gratify a naturally mean and 
selfish disposition. If it had always pursued a manly and 
generous course of conduct, it never would have been obliged 
to resort to so many devices to get new subscribers, and keep 
up the interests of its old ones. To make a paper popular 
its matter should be fresh, original, interesting, and instruc- 
tive, and its editor manly, generous, and just. The World 
grants that it “ might bo well enough for one writer to reply 
to another — both being “ stat umbra,” under a cloud. The 
article in the World had no responsible name ; it was not 
signed at all. We frequently know the nom de plume of 
many writers, but there is no way at all of designating 
an article without any name at all affixed to it, as appeared 
in that paper. Since the World’s correspondent took the 
trouble of finding me a name under which I should write, 
he has no reason to complain of my use of it, as he knew 
from whence the patronymic was derived — for whom it was 
intended — and therefore he knew who to hold responsible. 
It was in a “ dark corner ” that I had been groping for this 
cowardly correspondent of the World, “ afraid to come out 
like a man,” and I think I now have him by the throat. It 
is he who shows the white feather, and not “Trifler.” 1 
emphatically deny that I attacked the World under a false 
signature. I wrote under the name with which I had been 
baptized by its correspondent. But, the World wanted 
some excuse to vent its envious and jealous disposition to- 
wards the Fanciers’ Journal. This is another one of those 
Yankeyisms to attempt to drown the Journal in the vortex 
with itself. Saltpetre wont save you, Mr. World. Othel- 
lo’s occupation is gone! You have lost the confidence and 
respect of all honorable and high-minded men. Your un- 
warranted and uncalled for attacks were mean enough ; but, 
the manner with which you seek to skulk out, by attacking 
an “independent paper,” whose columns are open to see 
fair play, is the sublimity of meanness in the country for 
poultry men. This, my circumstance, which the World has 
created, demonstrates plainly the value of the Fanciers' 
Journal. 
The only inducement I had to come out of my “ hiding 
place ” is to catch that “ thrashing ” which I so richly de- 
serve of the World for giving it so much publicity in the 
Journal. 
It is an old saying that a dog that barks much never bites, 
but I am somewhat apprehensive that the World has not 
entirely recovered from the effect the dog-days had upon its 
editor in New York, and I should not care to be too close to 
his fangs lest I might be inoculated with the saliva. I 
generally sign my full name to my articles to get the benefit 
of a small advertisement, but in this instance I did not think 
I would be much profited by the World's notice. I really 
cannot see any reason for the World to lash itself into such 
a fury because I so readily accepted the name it gave me. 
It looks too much like a tempest in a tea-pot, a cyclone in a 
wash-tub, an earthquake among the types. 
Greenville, N. J. Isaac Van Winkle. 
SPIDER-KILLERS. 
By general observation spiders are considered by entomol- 
ogists to have a specific office, viz., to keep down the dan- 
gerous multiplication of winged insects. They occasionally 
seize a worm or stray caterpillar, if they happen to encroach 
upon their webbed territory. But entrapping flies is their 
forte. Insignificant and solitary as they are, we could not 
dispense with their quiet services. Let spiders strike, and 
for a single month in summer refuse to set their traps, we 
could hardly defend ourselves against armies of noxious in- 
sects that would take possession of our dwellings. But use- 
ful as they are, unobtrusive and vigilant as sentinels in cel- 
lars, garrets, under the floor, in the hiding-places of straying 
bugs, moths, and creeping things, they have their enemies, 
and are subject to the rigorous demands of the same law 
under which they act, otherwise there would be too many 
spiders in the world, especially in Van Dieman’s Land. 
Just in the busy season of spider activity, when they are 
slaughtering their thousands like Cincinnati butchers, a 
peculiar fly is let loose by nature to limit their multiplica- 
/ 
