August, '2lJ PHILLIPS: BEE DISEASE CONTROL 319 



punishment for the beekeeper who does not do his duty as laid down in 

 the law. If we, for the purpose of argument, assume that any part of 

 such destruction is for the purpose of punisliment, then the inspector 

 becomes sole judge of the existence of disease, judge as to whether his 

 orders have been carried out, the legal officer who brings action for prose- 

 cution and finally the marshall who carries out the provisions of the law 

 in the way of destruction. Merely to mention these functions is suffi- 

 cient to show that this is too much power to place in the hands of one 

 man where there are property rights to be considered. In order to 

 minimize this, it has sometimes been pointed out that a colony of bees 

 suffering from disease has no market value and that to destroy it is not 

 to destroy valuable property. No beekeeper really believes this argu- 

 ment for obviously the hives and material equipment are as good as if no 

 disease existed, the wax in the combs may be saved and even the bees 

 themselves may usually be saved by proper care. 



In almost all cases, the laws provide that the inspector shall teach 

 the beekeeper how to treat the disease found, and in some cases it is 

 further provided that the inspector shall take whatever other steps 

 shall be deemed desirable for the furtherance of beekeeping in the state. 

 This would include other educational work and this provision of the law 

 has been used to good advantage, even in states where no other educa- 

 tional work was being undertaken in beekeeping. It is obviously not 

 the intent of most of these laws that an educational system would be 

 built up for the furthering of beekeeping. 



It is opportune that we review this subject to see in what way this 

 inspection work has proven most helpful. Taking first European foul- 

 brood, the control of this disease demands that the beekeeper provide 

 those features which lead to colony prosperity in early summer so that 

 the bees can throw off the disease. It therefore becomes necessary for 

 the beekeeper so to provide for the deficiency of his locality that the 

 bees may build up. It takes a better beekeeper to continue to keep bees 

 in European foulbrood regions than is required in tht average locality. 



To overcome the deficiencies of a European foulbrood region requires 

 good beekeeping and good beekeepers cannot be made by the exercise of 

 police power. It has been shown most clearly that rigid inspection 

 provisions and the enforcement of the provisions of the usual state laws 

 are not of the slightest value in combating European foulbrood. The 

 making of good beekeepers is so obviously a matter of education that it 

 seems foolish to continue longer to try to control this disease by the 

 enactment or enforcement of legislation. 



American foulbrood may at first glance seem to be quite imlike the 

 other serious brood diseases in that there is danger of the spread of the 



