CHAPTER XXXV.

"HOLD YOUR HORSES."

My competitors in the hen-trade, by this time, had got to be exceedingly active and zealous, though they rarely indulged in personalities towards me, at all. Generous, disinterested, liberal, kind-hearted, valiant men! Providence will reward you all, I have no doubt, _some day or other_!

The following article, which appeared in a "respectable" agricultural sheet (which, though I was solicited so to do, I neither subscribed for nor advertised in), I offer here as a sample of the puffs that were extended to me for five years, by the small-fry humbugs whom I rarely condescended to notice. This "elegant extract" appeared in a northern _Farmer_:

"We did suppose that the strait-jacket we fitted to this fellow (Burnham) would be worn by him, but it appears that, on reading our article relative to his movements in England in regard to Grey Shanghae fowls, he cast it off, and made an attempt to put us _hors du combat_, in his usual style.

"But we must say that his pretensions to being an '_importer_' of these fowls, to having the '_original_' stock, to being the importer of the fowls he sent to England, is the greatest deception that ever came under our observation. But this is only in character with the general transactions of the man. In his dealings generally he seems to have had no other object in view but to _get all he could for his fowls_, with no regard to their _merits_. This is shown by a letter of his, which we have in our possession, written in 1852 to Dr. Bennett, in which he uses the following language, in regard to fowls: 'Anything that will _sell_,--bah!'

"We will take the liberty to digress a moment, to make a few remarks on his penchant for the use of the expression '_bah!_' which is his common habit in correspondence. When Burnham was a loafer at large, previous to his _foul_ speculations, it is said that he was very fond of _mutton_; and as many a fat lamb was missed in the vicinity where he resided, it was more than suspected that he knew what became of them. Whether this be so or not, it seems that '_bah_' is ever escaping from his lips, a judgment, as it were, for the alleged iniquity of disturbing the nocturnal peace of that quiet animal....

"Now, friend Burnham, do be civil and _honest_. Your having sold 'premium' Cochins all over the country, with the _real_ 'premium' fowls in your own yard, will soon be forgotten, and you may yet be considered a clever, honest fellow; but you _must_ stop pretending to be an 'importer' of fowls."

I was thus charged with putting my "friend" _hors du combat_, with lying generally, with sheep-stealing, with selling "premium" fowls over and over again, as well as with striving _to get all I could for my poultry_,--this _last_ offence being the most heinous of all! But, as I lived (as I supposed I should) to see this cub and his allies on their knees to me (as I could show, if I desired to do so, now), I did not mind these first-rate notices. They were most decidedly of _miner_ consideration in my esteem, when I thought how "the people" crowded around me to obtain eggs or samples of my famed "imported," "superior," "magnificent" and "never-to-be-too-much-lauded" pure-bred fowls!

In the official Report upon the first New York show, the Committee of Judges there state that, "though they have been governed by the nomenclature of the list, they by no means assent to it as a proper classification. _Shanghae_ and _Cochin-China_ are convertible terms, and Brahma Pootra is a name for a sub-variety of Shanghaes, of great size and beauty. White _Calcuttas_ and _Hong-Kongs_ were not on exhibition. Believing them to be inferior specimens of White and Black Shanghaes, it is likely that we would not have awarded them premiums, if found. In lieu thereof, we have assigned several additional second premiums for _Brahma Shanghaes_.

"For the sake of simplicity, we would recommend that _all_ thorough-bred large Asiatic fowls be classed under the name of _Shanghae_, to be further designated by their color; and, inasmuch as these shows are intended not solely for the aggrandizement of breeders, but for the purpose of converting 'Henology' into a science, we would earnestly suggest that all ridiculous, unmeaning _aliases_ be abandoned, and a simple, intelligible and truthful classification strictly observed." After quoting this, the writer above alluded to objects to the recommendation to call _all_ Asiatic fowls _Shanghaes_, notwithstanding the action of the Committees of the National Society. He insists:

"This is a ridiculous affair, and we call on fowl-breeders to _veto_ this nonsense at the outset. Just imagine what a ridiculous figure breeders would cut in calling their fowls '_Brahma_ Shanghaes,' '_Chittagong_ Shanghaes,' &c.! Why this desire to overturn _established_ names? It arises from a _prejudice_ against the _name_ 'Brahma Pootra,' and a desire to _put down_ that popular breed. Again: _Who_ are the gentlemen who recommend such a course? Why don't they give their _names_? These 'recommendations' and 'resolutions' are no more the act of the _National Poultry Society_ than of the Emperor of Russia! Where were the _forty_ MANAGERS when the above 'resolution' was passed? _We_, as _one_, were not there; and we learn that not over _three_ out of the entire number were present, and that the resolution was passed by _outsiders_, and, perhaps, influenced to do so by G.P. Burnham, of '_Grey Shanghae_' notoriety."

This clown even "regrets that he did not attend this show;" as if it would have made a difference in the result! Well, well!--the impudence and ignorance of some people really astound us, at times! He says "some of the best Brahma Pootra fowls were entered 'Chittagongs.' Now, we declare emphatically that the desire on the part of certain breeders to class the _Brahmas_ as identical with the _Chittagong_ fowl is absurd; and we assert that no man can produce any evidence that the Brahmas are identical with Chittagongs, beyond the fact that many breeders have produced mongrels, by crossing Brahmas with Chittagongs, and now seek to amalgamate the two breeds."

Who ever wished to "produce any evidence" on this subject, pray? "The people" wanted _fowls_; they never sought for "evidence," man! The breeder who could "produce" fowls was the man to succeed in the hen-trade. As you never did this, and only bought and sold wretched mongrels, with long names, you never succeeded. And "the people" said, "Served you right!"

This sapient editor then declares that he "doubts the ability of any _Poultry_ Society to maintain its existence _permanently_, for the reason that such societies will, sooner or later, degenerate into mere _speculating_ cliques, and the premiums will become a matter of _barter_, or a matter of _favor_ to particular men, like the operations of our government."

Is it possible! When did you discover this extraordinary and singular fact, my dear sir? Not until the close of the year 1854! After the cars had long since passed by, and the fun was over, effectually and forever, in this country. Your warning was valuable, indeed! The colt had left the stable, and you _now_ come to fasten the door! O, chief of prophets in Henology! how much "the people" owe you for your advice and foresight in this hum!

This writer finally thus wriggles over the action of the "National" Society at New York, which knocked his "Bother'ems" on the head so effectually, substituting their true name (the "Grey Shanghaes") for this ridiculously assumed cognomen. He continues:

"The most absurd thing which came under our observation at the fair was the _classification_ of certain fowls. There were the beautiful white Brahmas, with pencilled neck hackles, placed by the side of fowls of an owl or hawk color, and both classed '_Grey Shanghaes_!' How long will a few old fogies thus stultify themselves? Many exhibitors were highly displeased with this absurdity. They who think that the name of Brahma fowls can be changed to 'Grey Shanghaes' have entirely mistaken their ability to make such an innovation. What did all the nonsense in the resolutions passed at the National Poultry Show in New York about the nomenclature of fowls effect? Just nothing at all."

Indeed! Didn't it? Is it possible? You don't say so! My dear friend, you have a great deal to learn yet; and I here advise you, affectionately and lovingly, and with an ardent desire for your present and future good, to--"hold your horses!"