"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!"