772 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Nov. 17, 1904. 



frames split in two, the foundation placed between, and the 

 two parts of the frame then nailed tog^ether. Another way 

 is to use the ordinary frame, letting- the foundation com- 

 pletely fill it, then run melted wax entirely around the 

 edges. 



There still remains the question whether accidental ex- 

 posure of spots of the metal, giving the bees a start at 

 gnawing away the wax, may not occur with such frequency 

 as to rule out this so-called Columbus foundation. 



The Chapman Honey -Plant. 



This plant — Echinops spherocephalus — a few years ago 

 enjoyed no little prominence as a candidate for the favor 

 of bee-keepers, but has now sunk into obscurity. However 



good it might be as a honey-plant, it is not likely that it 

 will ever pay to occupy good land with a plant that has no 

 value in other respects. But it appears that in England 

 there is some show that the Chapman honey-plant may 

 secure a hearing for its values aside from nectar. Walter 

 T. Reid says in the British Bee Journal : 



" It furnishes an excellent vegetable in the early spring, 

 and one that can be easily grown on almost any soil. The 

 young shoots should be well blanched like sea-kale, and 

 cooked in a similar way. The flavor reminds one of sea- 

 kale with a slight resemblance to asparagus. A succession 

 of shoots may be obtained through the sumimer by cutting 

 down the main stems near the ground. The blanching 

 should be complete, the least trace of green color carrying 

 with it a bitter taste. The stems of the mature plant are 

 long and strong, and are very useful in the garden as sup- 

 ports for flowers, tomatoes," etc. 



2Ttt5CcUancou5 Views \icms 



Our Northwestern Trip is omitted this week owing 

 to much other matter for this department. Next week we 

 hope to find room to continue it. We are also getting to- 

 gether some illustrations to accompany the descriptions of 

 the firms and their factories. 



" We Be Bpethpen " in Bee-Keeping.— As a sample 

 of good comradeship among rival bee-papers, here are two 

 paragraphs worth reproducing, written by the editor of the 

 American Bee-Keeper, Harry E. Hill, the man who has 

 done such good editorial work at a lOOOmile range : 



" We have not a single name upon our list which is not 

 esteemed, and we should like very much to be able to have 

 each and every one remain with us while we continue to add 

 many others, so that a better and larger journal may the 

 sooner become possible ; but we delight in the thought that 

 we have several most worthy, bright, clean and valuable 

 competitors in the field with (not against) us, and all merit 

 patronage and success. 



" We want thousands more to take the American Bee- 

 Keeper, and hope they may do so ; but we are disinclined to 

 insult our intelligent readers by telling them that this is 

 the only worthy bee-journal published. There are others, 

 and we are glad of it. We wish them all success." 



This courteous utterance of Editor Hill was inspired by 

 a certain new bee-paper editor suggesting that his paper be 

 taken by bee-keepers and the older papers be dropped. That 

 meant that after the older papers have helped to build up 

 the industry of bee-keeping to a success, then the new 

 papers will enter into their (the older papers') labors and try 

 to usurp their places 1 Well ! well I who'd have thought it ? 



National Nominations and Candidates.— On page 740 

 we mentioned the fact that W. Z. Hutchinson had made 

 public an explanation of his circular-letter request to the 

 members of the National Bee-Keepers' Association to vote 

 for him for secretary. Since then we have received the 

 following from Mr. Hutchinson, with the request that it be 

 published : 



Editor York : — I notice that you refer to the explana- 

 tion that I made in Gleanings regarding my candidacy for 

 secretary. It is all right that you do this, as I wish all the 

 members to understand the matter thoroughly, but there is 

 one point where I fear a wrong conclusion might be drawn, 

 and that is where you say the circulars were sent out to a 

 " selected list ". It might be thought that they were sent 

 to those whom I thought were my friends, or who would 



vote for me, and withheld from others, which was not the 

 case. I had a list of members that I went over some two or 

 three years ago, and checked off the names of those who 

 were not subscribers, sending sample copies to this list. In 

 sending out the circulars they were not sent to the whole 

 membership, as it was thought that the same results would 

 be secured were they sent to half of them, and much ex- 

 pense would be saved, so they were sent out to those who 

 were not subscribers to the Review. Of course, a name here 

 and there might hade been overlooked when comparing the 

 lists two or three years ago, and quite a number have sub- 

 scribed since then, but the attempt was made, as far as 

 possible, to send them to those who were not subscribers, as 

 they would be, in a certain sense, an advertisement. I can 

 see now, although it did not occur to me at the time, that 

 sending them to part of the members might cause trouble, 

 but, agreeing with you most thoroughly in regard to avoid- 

 ing as much as possible, all trouble and dissension in our 

 ranks, I at once withdrew my candidacy as soon as I saw 

 how it was being looked upon. I did it for the sake of har- 

 mony. I am willing that the members shall know all about 

 it, but I would not like to have them think I was working 

 any sort of " scheme ", as such was not the case. 



Having said this much by way of explanation, please 

 allow me to say that I think there ought to be some way of 

 discussing candidates and nominations. If an officer does 

 not wish re-election, there ought to be some way in which 

 he can make it known. If a man desires an office, there 

 ought to be some way in which he can make that known. 

 If a man knows of some man who will, in his estimation, 

 be a suitable officer, he should be allowed in some way to 

 make this known, and so on. In politics, possible candi- 

 dates are discussed pro and con before there are any nomi- 

 nations. Last summer I received a circular from the Mas- 

 ter of our State Grange, asking me to work for his nomina- 

 tion. Perhaps we are not yet ready to adopt political meth- 

 ods, but I do think there should be some way of discussing 

 these matters in advance of the actual nominations. Seems 

 to me it might be done in the journals. Making nomina- 

 tions in advance of election is one step in advance, in that 

 two candidates are presented for election. This would en- 

 able us to vote out of office some undesirable officer. It does 

 not help us, however, in comparing candidates. 



In our State Associations, where about the same men 

 meet year after year, and become well acquainted, it is pos- 

 sible to elect the best men to office, but in the National 

 Association there is a lack of this intimate acquaintance 

 with all of the membership, and a tendency to elect the most 

 popular or best known man — perhaps some man who writes 

 a great many articles, or the editor of a bee-journal. These 

 men m;i y make good officers, and they may not. Because a 

 man is well known and popular is no sign that he would 

 make a g-ood officer. 



Pe haps this is not the time and place to discuss these 

 matter- but before another election I think they ought to 



