422 



AMERICAN BEE lOUFNAL 



July 4, 1901. 



No. 2.— Some Reminiscences of an Old Bee-Keeper. 



BV THADDEl'S SMITH. 



IT is not my intention to go into the history of the first 

 invention or use of the movable-comb hive, as I have 

 not the statistics, and it does not come within the scope 

 of these papers. Mr. Langstroth's patent, I think, was 

 issued in 1852, or about that time, and he admits that some 

 kind of movable combs were used in hives in Europe by 

 Munn, Huber, Dzierzon, and perhaps others, some eight or 

 ten years before his invention or improvements on the hive. 

 I have not even Mr. Langstroth's book before me to refer to 

 on these matters, and I do not wish to go beyond my own 

 memory, assisted by reference to some numbers of the old 

 American Bee Journal. 



The invention and introduction of movable-frame 

 hives certainly created a new era in bee-keeping in this 

 country, and the introduction of the Italian bee about the 

 same time gave a still greater impetus to the business. 

 But the Italian bee would have made slow progress in this 

 country had it not been tor the movable-comb hive — proba- 

 bly it never would have been disseminated here at all to any 

 great extent. 



When Mr. Langstroth offered the first practical work- 

 ing movable-frame hive to the country, involving prin- 

 ciples that had never been used in any hive in Europe, 

 there were many, I might say hundreds of imitators and 

 those who professed to have made improvements upon the 

 standard Langstroth hive by making all sorts of changes, 

 mostly of little, and many of no, importance ; and on 

 many of these changes and so-called improvements patents 

 were taken out when the only thing of real merit about 

 them was the movable-frz.me principles of Mr. Langstroth's 

 patent. Scores of these hives, patented and non-patented, 

 were offered and highly commended to the bee-keeping pub- 

 lic, the most of them taking the name of their introducer. 

 We had the Ouinby hive. King hive. Alley hive, the Flan- 

 ders three-cornered or Diamond hive, Thomas hive, Ameri- 

 can hive, Adair's "New Idea hive." "The long Ideal 

 Hive," Gallup hive, Heddon hive, and Price's Reversible, 

 Revolvable hive, and — I think I would better end the list 

 here, for time and space forbid the mention of all of them. 



Mr. H. R. King was probably the most persistent of 

 these so-called new hive inventors, in trying to invalidate 

 Mr. Langstroth's claims to originality in his hive. He 

 made a trip to Europe and spent thousands of dollars for 

 the purpose of collecting evidence to disprove Mr. Lang- 

 stroth's claims. He found, as I have stated in the begin- 

 ning of this article, that frames of some kind had been 

 used by certain ones in Europe some years previous to Mr. 

 Langstroth's invention : but they all proved so different 

 from Mr. Langstroth's hive, and so crude in comparison, 

 that Mr. Langstroth's claims were sustained in the suit 

 brought to test the matter. N. C. Mitchell was another 

 hive patentee who violently assailed Mr. Langstroth's 

 claims, and established a new bee-paper for that purpose. 

 In the early seventies the battle of the bee-hive men waxed 

 warm indeed. 



The onl3' hive besides the Langstroth, of the new 

 patents, that I was ever induced to try, was that of J. H. 

 Thomas, of Canada. Mr. Thomas set forth the claims of 

 his hive in numerous letters to the American Bee Journal 

 and other prints, and boldly stated that he had " the best 

 hive in America." About that time I had left "my old 

 Kentucky home, far away," and was located in the ijueen's 

 Dominion, on Pelee Island, and although I had brought 

 with me the Langstroth hive as made in Cleveland, Ohio, I 

 concluded to try the Thomas hive, and ordered half a 

 dozen. 



This hive was an admirable adaptation of frames to 

 the form of the old box-hive — tall in proportion to length 

 and breadth, was well made, and of neat appearance. For 

 surplus there was the ordinary cap, covering a neat honey- 

 box with glass in each end. There were but eight frames, 

 and they were fixed so as to be stationary, but still by a 

 peculiar arrangement were very easily handled. It had a 

 sloping bottom-board with a lot of minor " fixings " of no 

 especial value. The frames, of course, were large. Soon 

 after this I became the owner of a Peabody honey- 

 extractor, and the Thomas hives did not suit me. I aban- 

 doned the use of them, although I had made a number 

 besides those I bought. There is one about now, in first- 

 rate state of preservation for having laid in the lumber- 

 room of my barn for the past 20 years ; others went for 

 hen's nests and chicken-boxes. 



As so many were getting up new hives — patented and 



non-patented— your humble servant thought he could get 

 up one, too — of course, an improvement on anything that 

 he had seen or heard of 1 



I early became greatlj- interested in Mr. Gallup and 

 his writings, of whom I maj- have more to say under 

 another head ; and took his hive and descriptions for my 

 model — ivilh changes and improvements, of course .' May I 

 be pardoned for giving an extract from an article on "The 

 Hive Ouestion," printed over 30 years ago, descriptive of 

 my hive, as I wish to make some comments on it in connec- 

 tion with other hives. Here is an extract : 



•' 1 have made a hive on the plan of Mr. Gallup, that I believe 

 possesses many advantages, and is capable of being used more way8, 

 with the same size frame for all the different stj'les. than any hive I 

 have seen described. The brood apartment is the plain box of Mr. 

 Gallup — 11 inches wide, 14 inches deep, IS inches long, or as much 

 longer as may be desired. The frames are hung across the narrow 



way We can use this hive, 1st, as a simple frame hive with large. 



room on top for surplus boxes; 3d, by extending the length to any 

 desired number of frames ; frames for suri)lus honey may be put in 

 each end for emptying with the extractor ; 3cl, it can easily be made a 

 two-story hive with tlie same size frames in the upper story; 4th, by 

 having movable side-boards it may be made a non-swarmer, on Mr. 

 Quinby's and Mr. Alley's principle, and piles of honey-boxes may be 

 put on the sides and top. I have one with 13 frames. 10 five-pound 

 boxes form the sides, and three r2-|)ound boxes on top — all enclosed 

 in a suitable case. From all that I have read on the subject of hives. 

 I think that I have hit the golden mean in width and depth. , . .1 call 

 this hive, with its non-swarming and box arrangements, the •Quim/iu- 

 plexal - Duplex- ('ombiuation- Xoit-pateuted - S uper-floora- Hoitey - pfoducmy 

 Him.' It Is said there is nothing in a name, but if I could only get 

 Mr. Price's ' Beverslble-Iievolvable ' attachment, with the privilege of 

 adding the name, there would be considerable improvement in adopt- 

 ing this compilation for the modified arrangement." 



Of course the name was intended as a burlesque on 

 the many claims of some other hives. But I was in 

 earnest in thinking that I had the " golden mean " in size, 

 and a good thing in a hive that could be used in so many 

 different ways with the same frame, but I never applied for 

 a patent nor offered a hive or a " territory " for sale, though 

 I had material got out in the flat for 50 hives for ray own 

 use. 



I had a hive made with open side and side-boxes, as 

 described — the non-swarmer ; I put two hives together end- 

 wise, and had the "long-ideal" hive. I put two side by 

 side, with one side of each open, and had the "twin hive," 

 and by putting one on top of the other I had the two-story 

 hive, or three stories, if desired, as I have sometimes used 

 them. 



I have recently read where the writer of the article 

 said in effect: "Before you go into side-storing surplus 

 arrangements extensively, first find out if you have the 

 side-storing kind of bees." I was not long in finding out 

 that my bees were not the side-storing kind, and all my 

 hives except the two stories went to the lumber-room. I 

 think some are there yet — have been for 20 years. I am 

 using some of these hives now as twostory — 25 frames for 

 extracting ; and they make good supers for my chaff Lang- 

 stroth hives. For better wintering I made some with 

 double walls with air-spaces. 



I have found it to my advantage to use the extractor, 

 and these frames work well in it. I bought the Peabody as 

 soon as I heard of it on the market. It looks as if it would 

 never wear out, but I got a better one a number of years 

 ago — the Cowan reversible. 



It is undoubtedly true that there have been many 

 improvements made upon the original Langstroth hive in 

 the first form given to us, especially the box that contained 

 the frames. The introduction of the extractor, the more 

 general use of section surplus boxes, and general advance- 

 ment that has been made in bee-keeping in the last half 

 century, demanded something different — more simple in 

 construction, and better adapted to present wants, but man- 

 taining the same principles of the movable comb that Mr. 

 Langstroth invented ; and the great majority of the hives 

 now in use have the same size frame, with the same rela- 

 tive proportions as first recommended by Mr. Langstroth, 

 and those in which but small changes have been made from 

 the Langstroth frame are in almost universal use in this 

 countrj'. 



And where are the hives of King, of Thomas, of 

 Flanders, and of the whole list of these so-called improved 

 hives? Echo answers, " Where ?" We certainly hear but 

 little from them now through the press. And their makers 

 and inventors? Many no doubt, like Mr. Langstroth, have 

 passed over the border to the Beyond, where they are free, 

 we hope, from toil, envy and strife. And the rest of us 

 old fellows — their cotemporaries — must, in the nature of 

 things, soon follow. Ontario, Canada. 



