Februaiy, '14] NEWELL: APIARY INSPECTION LAW 95 



to legislate against it, there would be innumerable difficulties in the- 

 way of enforcing such a provision. However, this does not prevent 

 enactment of a section which will impose a heavy penalty for malicious 

 distribution of diseased honey for the purpose of intentionally spread- 

 ing disease or introducing it into a new locality. 



Among the most important essentials of a good law is the provision 

 which permits of placing quarantines upon specific areas, such as coun- 

 ties or tow^nships. Such quarantines may be either protective or 

 restrictive. By protective is meant a quarantine which protects the- 

 quarantined area against the importation of diseased bees or fixtures. 

 A restrictive quarantine, on the other hand, is applied to an infected 

 area and prevents the movement of diseased material out of it. A 

 protective quarantine protects a certain area against disease: a restric- 

 tive quarantine protects the state at large against a diseased area. 

 Both kinds of quarantine are absolutely essential to successful eradi- 

 cation. 



Another important feature of efficient laws is that which provides 

 for the sheriffs and county attorneys assisting the entomologist or 

 chief inspector Avhenever called upon to do so. It is also at times a 

 marked advantage for the entomologist to have power to summon 

 witnesses and take testimony under oath. This authority can of 

 course be granted only by legislative act. 



The postal regulations at present in effect regarding the sending of 

 queen bees by mail appear to prevent much of the danger of disease 

 being disseminated through this channel and any attempt by the states 

 to regulate the sale or shipment of queens would appear to be unneces- 

 sary. At most the state law could include, as one of its sections, the 

 essential requirements of the Post Office Department. Thus there 

 Avould be no conflict between the two authorities, yet state officials 

 could prosecute violations if it were found desirable to do so. Punish- 

 ment by the federal authorities would probably be limited to barring 

 the offending queen breeder from use of the mails for shipping his 

 queens. 



As it is considered necessary that bees be kept only in frame hives, 

 for the eradication work to be efficient, the problem of compelling 

 owners to transfer their bees from box hives to frame hives is constantly 

 arising. One mistake often made is that of incorporating in the law 

 a section providing for the confiscation of bees which the owner refuses 

 to transfer, or the confiscation of diseased bees. Such a provision is 

 contrary to the constitution of most of the states and if the inspector 

 tried to carry it out literally he would get into no end of difficulties. 

 I am frank to confess that the Texas law I have mentioned contains 

 just such an unconstitutional provision, but in justice it should be said 



