LAWS KELATING TO BEES. 



298 



LAWS RELATING TO BEES. 



life, the ordinary trades and inirsuits, which 

 are innocent in themselves, and have been 

 followed in all communities from time im- 

 memorial, must, therefore, be free in this 

 country to all alike on equal terms. The 

 right to pursue them witiiout let or hin- 

 drance, except that which is applied to all 

 persons of the same age, sex, and condition, 

 is a distinguishing privilege which they 

 claim as their birthright." In the same 

 case Judge Bradley says: "I hold that the 

 liberty of pursuit, the right to follow any of 

 the ordinary callings of life, is one of the 

 privileges of a citizen of the United States, 

 of which he can not be deprived without in- 

 vading his right to liberty within the mean- 

 ing of the constitution." 



It may be well to state in this connection 

 that the National Bee-keepers' Association 

 frequently undertakes to defend its mem- 

 bers in a court of law where the circumstan- 

 ces warrant the assistance of this influential 

 body. 



FOUL-BROOD LAWS. 



BEE-DISEASE LAWS; THEIR ENFORCEMENT. 



In controlling bee diseases in a communi- 

 ty, past experience has shown that it is nec- 

 essary that every bee-keeper do his part; 

 otherwise the work done l)y individuals is 

 largely nullified by the carelessness or neg- 

 lect of a few. Where all the bee-keepers 

 are progressive, a simple plan of co-opera- 

 tion would be enough; but, vnifortunately, 

 there are in almost all communities some 

 bee-keepers who are either ignorant, care- 

 less, or willfully negligent. If, therefore, 

 they will not voluntarily care for their bees 

 as they should, there must be some legal 

 means of compelling them to abate a public 

 nuisance when disease appears among their 

 colonies. Without such a law for regions 

 where disease exists, progressive bee-keep- 

 ing is ditficult and nearly impossible. 



Laws providing for inspection of apiaries 

 with the object of controlling disease are, 

 therefore, drafted primarily for the bee- 

 keeper who does not voluntarily treat dis- 

 eased colonies. The progressive bee-keeper 

 needs no such law to compel him to do his 

 duty. The inspector of apiaries, however, 

 in actual practice, is much more than a 

 police officer; in fact, his police duties are 

 but a small part of his work. However the 

 law may be worded, the good which an in- 

 spector does is due in the greater part to his 

 work as an educator. It is the duty of the 

 inspector, specified in the law in most cases, 

 to instruct the bee-keepers how to know dis- 



ease and how and when to treat. The great 

 good which has been done by the various in- 

 spectors in the past has been due almost en- 

 tirely to this phase of their work. 



It is, however, most unwise to set the in- 

 spector to work merely as an educational of- 

 ficer without any power to enforce his or- 

 ders. This has been tried, and appears to 

 be a failure. There are, unfortunately, in 

 almost all communities, bee-keepers who, 

 from obstinancy or spite, must be driven to 

 their duty. Most men, how^ever, when once 

 they learn that they must treat disease will 

 accept the teachings of the inspector. 



The following States and Territories now 

 have laws of some kind providing for in- 

 spection: California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

 Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kan- 

 sas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebras- 

 ka, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, 

 Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wash- 

 ington, Wisconsin. Somewhat similar laws 

 exist in New Zealand, some states in Aus- 

 tralia, Ontario, Ireland, and parts of Europe. 

 The bee-keepers in several other States are 

 now agitating the passage of similar laws. 



These laws maybe divided into two groups 

 —those in which the work is done by men 

 employed by the State, and those in which, 

 by a State, Territory, or county law, the 

 county authorities may appoint inspectors 

 for the county only. Of these the work by 

 State officers has proven much more effec- 

 tive. In States where the counties are 

 small, as in the East, county inspection is of 

 practically no value (e. g., Ohio). In States 

 where the counties are small it is practically 

 impossible to get competent inspectors in 

 every county; and, furthermore, there is not 

 enough work or enough money available to 

 induce a good man to take the work, unless 

 he is doing it merely for the good of the in- 

 dustry. In the West, where some counties 

 are as large as some of the Eastern States, 

 there is more reason for county inspection; 

 but even in these cases the results are, as a 

 rule, not equal to those obtained in States 

 having State inspection. 



The chief weakness in county inspection 

 is the lack of co-operation among the inspec- 

 tors in neighboring counties. There is in 

 most cases not only a lack of co-operation, 

 but too often a jealousy between them which 

 results in a loss of co-ordination in the work. 

 This might be remedied by the appointment 

 of a competent State inspector to whom the 

 county inspectors would be responsible; but 

 county officials would probably object to the 

 appointment of oflicers over whom they had 



