M 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



an agent, or, rather a manufacturer of 

 fishing rods, and it was a real treat 

 to hear Mr. Heddon and this man 

 "taliv tishiug." Mr. Heddon has evi- 

 dently studied fish and their habits, 

 and the methods of taking them with 

 aitificial baits, just as he has studied 

 bees and their habits. He and his son, 

 Willie, are going to Florida this month 

 to pass the rest of the winter, and 

 will put in a good share of their time 

 fishing and studying the habits of the 

 fish of Florida. 



But I am wandering, and I must 

 come back to bees, and let the fish 

 stories alone. The next morning 1 

 went over the different plans that 

 have been proposed for National Com- 

 mercial Organization. He thought the 

 matter over for awhile, then said: 

 "Hutch, I don't believe you'll make it 

 work. The country is too large, there 

 are too many bee-keepers, and they 

 are too scattered. They are lacking, 

 many of them, in business abilities. 

 Ordinary bee-keepers have not had 

 the business training that comes to 

 the heads of manufacturing concerns 

 that go into a trust. Any business 

 concern that goes into combination 

 with other like concerns is ready at 

 all times to 'eat crow.' If a whole 

 loaf cannot be secured, a half loaf is 

 accepted. Let come what may, they 

 all hang together. They keep up the 

 combination. Bee-keepers won't do 

 this. The moment that a man's honey 

 isn't graded as he thinks it ought to 

 be graded, the moment he does not get 

 the returns to which he thinks he is 

 entitled, out he goes." 



I cited him the Colorado Honey 

 Producers' Association. "Yes," lie 

 snid, "the bee-keepers of a certain 

 state or locality may band together, 

 if there is any reason why they 

 should, and make a success of it. Cali- 

 fornia may form an association and 

 make a success; so may Colorado; so 

 may Canada; or New York; but when 



you attempt to combine all of the bee- 

 keepers of this country into one socie- 

 ty, or have a central organization con- 

 trolling the different local organiza- 

 tions, you are courting failure. There 

 is always something going into the 

 central organization, but nothing com- 

 ing back." 



I then asked him if the National 

 Assiociation might not aid in the way 

 of gathering statistics, regarding both 

 the crop and the markets. He thought 

 it might possibly do this, but consid- 

 ered this to be a work that might bet- 

 ter be carried on by the bee journals. 



The Review wishes to be entirely 

 fair, to give both sides of the subject, 

 and, if it is really advisable to drop this 

 idea of first starting a National, cen- 

 tral organization, working up, instead, 

 local organizations, like that of Col- 

 orado, then the sooner we know this 

 the better. The Review is not yet 

 ready to offer advice upon this sub- 

 ject, but, as being something in the 

 line of Mr. Heddon's idea, it offers 

 the following from the pen of Mr. F. 

 L. Thompson, of Denver, Colorado, 

 and published in the Progressive Bee- 

 Keeper. Mr. Thompson says: 



"In the November Review, just to 

 hand, the first proposal of a form of 

 by-laws, by Mr. F. E. Brown, for a 

 National marketing organization is 

 given. An article appears by Mr. K. 

 A. Daggitt, going rather extensively 

 into co-operation for farmers; and an 

 article by Mr. W. A. H. Gilstrap fol- 

 lows on the necessity for and right of 

 a honest trust. The Rocky Mountain 

 Bee Journal is also going at the sub- 

 ject in the same devoted fashion. An 

 nrticle by Mr. Aikin in the November 

 number merits attention. 



The by-laws proposed by Mr. Brown 

 Mere not intended to be published. 

 I think it was a mistake to publish 

 them. They are open to serious criti- 

 cism, and will undoulitedly be greatly 

 modified by the committee. Their 



