FOURTEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART IX. 661 



posed so it will read something like this: An expert can produce twice 

 the revenue from an apiary of bees run for comb honey as can be pro- 

 duced from a similar apiary run for extracted honey. 



In conclusion I want to say that it seems to me a shame, almost 

 a sacrilege, that honey with the color, body and flavor of onr Iowa 

 white clover honey should be extracted and put up in nasty, rusty 

 second hand tin cans and sold for 8 to 9 cents per pound, even in a 

 wholesale way. 



If some of our great corporations had the control of all this crop, 

 they would put it in proper containers, and by advertising it, even at 

 one-half the expense they are to in advertising Karo Glucose, it would 

 be all sold at 25 to 30 cents per pound, which would be only a fair 

 price as compared with other food products at the present time. 



Honey is one of our Creator's choicest gifts to man. 



It contains as much nutriment and life sustaining properties as butter, 

 cheese, or meat and the price should be just as high. 



Ladies and gentlemen, for youir patience and attention, I thank you. 



BEE KEEPERS' LEGAL STATUS. 



RUSSELL E. OSTRUS, DES MOINES, IOWA. 



It is not my purpose in the presentation of this paper to cover all 

 the legal questions which might be suggested by the title of this paper. 

 However, I will treat on the subjects that I feel it is possible for me to 

 partially cover in the time alloted for this paper. 



Originally bees were considered as coming under the rules which were 

 applied to the wild beasts or birds or fish but as the industry of man has 

 gradually placed the bees under such confinement that they may be 

 handled similar to the method of handling domestic animals, our own 

 courts have gradually applied the same rules of law for the bee as is ap- 

 plied to domestic animals until at the present time we find that as near 

 as practicable our courts are treating the bees under similar rules as 

 they treat the domestic animal. 



Bees are by nature ferae naturae (wild by nature) ; but when hived 

 and reclaimed a person may have a qualified property in them by the law 

 of nature, as well as the civil law. Hiving or enclosing bees gives prop- 

 erty rights in them to the person who has hived such bees. An un- 

 reclaimed swarm, like all other wild animals, belongs to the person who 

 first takes control of them and continues to control them. It is the act 

 of hiving that gives a person property rights in bees. If a swarm of 

 bees fly from the hive of another, his qualified property continues so long 

 as he can keep them in sight, or in other words, while he can dis- 

 tinguish and identify them in the air, and he possesses the power to 

 pursue them. Under such circumstances no one else is entitled to take 

 them. 



If any domestic animal of one person strays onto the premises of an- 

 other the owner of such domestic animal has no right to follow such 

 animal onto the premises of another and take such animal back to his 

 own premises, because by so doing he becomes a trespasser. However, the 

 absolute right of ownership w^ould still continue in him. Now the same 

 rule applies to bees because when hived they are considered as being 

 under the same rules as domestic animals, although they cannot be con- 

 trolled in their every act as is the case with most domestic animals. 



There are a number of decisions by our higher courts that have held 

 that when bees in swarming leave "the owner's hive and have gone into 

 a hive or a tree on the premises of another that such owner may maintain 

 an action in damages against a third party who has entered the land, 

 hived the bees, and taken the honey away. 



In case bees have been taken away from the owner or are being wrong- 

 fully detained from him, such owner may bring an action of replevin and 



