<^ 



^j^ERECAg" 



41st YEAR. 



CHICAGO, ILL., JANUARY 3, 1901, 



NoJ, 



I * Editorial. * j 



lOOl— Volume XLI.— The first year of 

 the new century is here — the 20th century. 

 The first number of the 41st volume of the 

 American Bee Journal is also here. Tho the 

 past century was one of wonderful improve- 

 ments and developmentSj we suppose this new 

 century we are just entering upon will be still 

 more wonderful. That hardly seems possible, 

 and yet it doubtless will be true. 



But what of the old American Bee Journal 

 in this 20th century ? It also must keep step 

 with the progressive spirit of this rapidly ad- 

 vancing age. And it will do so. We need not 

 make any promises for the fnture to those 

 who have been reading the old American Bee 

 Journal during the past 10 or more, or even 

 less, years. We mean to keep its standard up 

 hereafter as we have tried to do in the past. 

 We realize that this we can not do alone — we 

 must have the hearty and continued support 

 and encouragement of the bee-keepers them- 

 selves. We believe we will have it — at least 

 we will endeavor to merit it. 



We can all, then, look forward to the com- 

 ing years with a strong faith and a high hope, 

 realizing that in a united effort for the right 

 we shall be successful in all that is worthy 

 and true. 



The Utter vs. Utter Case in New York 

 State, which has been referred to in these 

 columns several times the past few months, 

 came to trial again, and was decided in favor 

 of the bee-keeper, on Dee. 19th. 



Mr. O. L. Hershiser, superintendent of tlie 

 apiarian exhibit at the Pan-American E.xposi- 

 t ion, being present and assisting during the 

 trial, the following account written by him 

 will be read with great .satisfaction by all, 

 and particularly by the members of the Na- 

 tional Bee-Keepers" Association, whose money 

 helpt their fellow member to win his ease : 



Mt Deak Mr. York: — I enclose you news- 

 paper clippings concerning the now famous 

 case of Utter vs. Vtter, and will request that 

 remaining papers containing acmuritsof tlie 

 case be forwarded to you by the publishers. 

 In the meantime, let me tell you so you will 

 have no dismal apprehensions concerning the 

 result of the litigation, that the bees were en- 

 tirely exonerated of the charge of mischief as 

 complained of. The case oeciipii-il (.ver twn 

 days, the jury being nearly all druwii un Mon- 

 day afternoon, and the jury's vi-rilict brought 

 in at about dusk on Wednesday evening. 



For a case involving such insigniflcaut 

 damages, Tve seen nothing that has created 

 so much interest to lawyers and sensation to 

 the people, in many a day, as ilid this case. It 

 seemed to be the only subject of conversation 



for the people in the hotels, railway stations 

 and stores, and by groups of people on the 

 streets. Besides local witnesses, the plaintiff 

 had Mr. Banes — a fruit-grower of New Hamp- 

 shire ; and the defense, besides local witnesses, 

 had several fruit-growers and apiarists from 

 New Jersey. A. I. and E. R. Root from Ohio, 

 Frank Benton from Washington, Mr. Marks 

 from this State, and your humble servant as 

 counsel and witness. 



I understand the jury's first; ballot was 10 

 votes to 2 blanks tor no cause of action, which 

 was immediately made unanimous for no 

 cause of action. They were out scarcely five 

 minutes. Was not that a complete victory ? 



Too much credit can not be given the just 

 judge for his fair and impartial attitude and 

 rulings on every disiuileil point, anil for the 

 great learning and aliility of Messrs. F.actm t\: 

 Merritt. And while passing. I desin- that you 

 know that learned and astute counsel were 

 opposed to us in the persons of Messrs. F. V. 

 Sanford and M. N. Kaine. both of whom are 

 scholarly and gentlemanly members of the 

 legal fraternity : and w^hile they brought to 

 bear all llicir M'liolarly attainments and legal 

 acumen in this very bitterly contested case, I 

 think that all on the opposite side will agree 

 that they were treated in a gentlemanly and 

 dignified manner. 



Of course, you will observe that the scene of 

 of this fight was in the village of Amity, 

 which, to say the least, was very ironical ; 

 that, metaphorically speaking, one brother 

 sought to kill, or "do up '' the other, and that 

 this fratricide might be accomplisht aeeonling 

 to ancient usage, as recorded in Holy Writ, 

 Kaine was brought in to assist one of the 

 brothers in his fell purpose. However, the 

 plaintiff would not be disposed of in this 

 summary manner, and knowing of a firm of 

 distinguisht legal gentlemen, who, be it said, 

 Merritt their Bacon, he enlisted them in his 

 behalf. These lawyers were Bmt on (Benton) 

 goini.'' tn thr /I'riur of the matter, and, accord- 

 ingly, Mill jni- cirtain gentlemen from Wash- 

 ington mid oliin to assist them in getting 

 down to first principles. The Utter absurdity 

 of the plaintiff's claims were made apparent 

 to all observers, after the gentleman from 

 Chapinville had made Marks of his witnesses, 

 by jiroviiig I" the jury that in their claims 

 that lH■l■^ puncture peaches they were simply 

 "talking thru their hats." And now that it 

 has been judicially settled, that the claims of 

 the plaintiff were too Utterly Utter, I think we 

 are justified in believing that peace will reign 

 in Amity again. Yours truly, 



Orel. L. Hershiser. 



From the clippings kindly sent us by Mr. 

 Hershiser, we take these paragraphs, the 

 newspaper in which they appeared being 

 the Middletown (N. Y.) Daily Argus: 



The case was opened for the plaintiff by Mr. 

 Sanford. He said he askt only SlOO damages; 

 that the case was not one which charged that 

 peaches and trees had been destroyed by 

 stinging. He claimed about as follows : The 

 two Utters lived near Amity, in the town of 

 Warwick. One raises peaches, the other is a 

 kripcr of bees. William H. owns 4,000 peacli- 

 tiic^. Forty rods from one of his orchards 

 are several hundred hives belniiLiinu' to his 

 brother. The bees from \\v^<- liivf^ licqnired 

 the habit of Hyiiej- over \'< ih. ,iivliaid and 

 " puncturing" his pcaehe>. miiUih^' tlie fruit, 

 and making great quantities of it unfit for 

 market. The juice trickling from the fruit 

 would form a substance about the branches of 



the trees, which, in time, destroyed the 

 branches, and in time 40 trees were totally 

 destroyed. 



Wm. H. Utter, the plaintiff, was the first 

 witness. This is the substance of his testi- 

 mony : On July 5th last he walkt into his 

 orchard and noticed that there were many bees 

 in his peach-trees. Every day after that the 

 bees began to get thicker and thicker. He 

 counted as many as 14 bees on a peach, and 

 saw so many others on other peaches that he 

 couldn't count them. He watcht their 

 operations. A single bee would come up to 

 the peach, walk all around it, pick out a good 

 spot, and put its nose in. Then it would wig- 

 gle its head one way and then it would wiggle 

 it another. Then it would stand upon its feet 

 and pull out its nose. Then another bee would 

 come and find the hole. Then a third and 

 fourth, and a whole lot of bees would come to 

 that peach, and in less than a week the peach 

 would die. 



This is the way he found out that the bees 

 were from his brother's hives: He built a box 

 and put flour in it. Then by another con- 

 trivance he caught a lot of the bees on his 

 peaches, put them in the flour-box. and when 

 they had become white he permitted them to 

 escape. Then he followed their line of flight, 

 and in most cases they went direct to his 

 brother's hives. 



Next week we hope to have a fiu'ther repot t 

 on this celebrated case. 



Clarifying of Wax.— It is a good thing 

 to have the same thing viewed by many eyes, 

 thereby reaching it from all sides. Regarding 

 the clarifying of wax. the following kind note 

 is received : 



Mt Dear Mr. York:— Haven't you made 

 a little mistake in your editorial answer to Mr. 

 Hill about the cooling of wax ? The real 

 truth is, that the time taken in the cooling of 

 the wax makes no dilTererice whatever — it is 

 in the length of time it r,Lii;iins in a melted 

 condition. The effect on ruidr will be exactly 

 the same if the wax should Ih> slightly heating 

 instead of cooling all the time it remains 

 melted. And I can not conceive how you 

 could possibly give the meaning you did to 

 the quotation you made from Mr. Hill. 



O. O. POPPI.ETOX. 



Decidedly Mr. Poppleton is correct, that the 

 thing that makes a difference in the clarifying 

 of the wax is the " length of time it remains 

 in a melted condition,"' altho it is doubtful if 

 any one has exprest the idea in that exact 

 form before. But is it strictly correct to say 

 that "the time taken in the cooling of the 

 wax makes no difference whatever '." It is 

 true that after the temperature of the wax has 

 come down to the melting-point, it makes no 

 difference whether it is ten seconds or ten 

 years in getting down to the temperature of 

 the surro\inding atmosphere, but it does make 

 a difference as to the time of the cooling of 

 the wax down to about 14.5 degrees, just be- 

 cause the longer time it takes in cooling down 

 to that point the longer time it is in the de- 

 sirable melted condition. 



Having agreed that slow cooling is not per xe 



A 3 -ro'i 



