July, 1911. 



American ;Bac Joarnal j 



y^=.^^ i 



sonable business hours to enter into or upon 

 any farm or premises, or other building or 

 place used for the purpose of propagating 

 or nurturing bees. If said inspector of api- 

 aries, or his assistants, shall find by inspec- 

 tion that any person, firm or corporation is 

 maintaining a nuisance as described in this 

 section, he shall notify in writing the owner 

 or occupant of the premises containing the 

 nuisance so disclosed of the fact that such 

 nuisance exists. He shall include in such 

 notice a statement of the conditions consti- 

 tuting such nuisance, and order that the 

 same be abated within a specific time and a 

 direction, written or printed, pointing out 

 the methods which shall be taken to abate 

 the same. Such notice and order may be 

 served personally or by depositing the same 

 in the post-office properly stamped, ad- 

 dressed to the owner or occupant of the 

 land or premises upon which such nuisance 

 exists, and the direction for treatment may 

 consist of a printed circular, bulletin or re- 

 port of the Inspector of Apiaries, or an ex- 

 tract from same. 



If the person so notified shall refuse or 

 fail to abate said nuisance in the manner 

 and in the time prescribed in said notice, 

 the Inspector of Apiaries may cause such 

 nuisance to be abated, and he shall certify 

 to the owner or person in charge of the 

 premises the cost of the abatement, and if 

 not paid to him within sixty days thereafter 

 the same may be recovered, together with 

 the costs of action, before any court in the 

 State having competent jurisdiction. 



In case notice and order served as afore- 

 said shall direct that any bees, hives, bee- 

 fixtures or appurtenancesshall bedestroyed 

 and the owner of such bees, hives, bee- 

 fixtures or appurtenances shall consider 

 himself aggrieved by said order, he shall 

 have the privilege of appealing within three 

 days of the receipt of the notice to the 

 county court of the county in which such 

 property is situated. The appeal shall be 

 made in like manner as appeals are taken 

 to the county court from judgments of jus- 

 tices of the peace. Written notice of said 

 appeal served by mail upon the Inspector of 

 Apiaries shall operate to stay all proceed- 

 ings until the decision of the county court, 

 which may, after investigating the matter, 

 reverse, modify or affirm the order of the 

 Inspector of Apiaries. Such decision shall 

 then become the order of the inspector of 

 Apiaries, who shall serve the same as here- 

 inbefore set forth, and shall fix a time with- 

 in which such decision must be carried out. 

 Sec. 3. The Inspector of Apiaries shall, on 

 or before the second Monday in December 

 of each calendar year, make a report to the 

 Governor and also to the Illinois State Bee- 

 Keepers' Association, stating the number of 

 apiaries visited, the number of those dis- 

 eased and treated, the number of colonies 

 of bees destroyed and the expense incurred 

 in the performance of his duties. 



Sec. 4. Any owner of a diseased apiary or 

 appliances taken therefrom, who shall sell, 

 barter or give away any such apiary, appli- 

 ance, queens or bees from such apiary, ex- 

 pose other bees to the danger of contract- 

 ing such disease, or refuse to allow the In- 

 spector of Apiaries to inspect such apiary, 

 or appliances, shall be fined not less than 

 $50 nor more than Sioo. 



For something like 6 years the Illi- 

 nois State Bee-Keepers' Association 

 has been endeavoring to induce the 

 Illinois Legislature to pass this much- 

 needed law, for the purpose of eradi- 

 cating the disease of foul brood among 

 bees in this State. At almost every 

 session of the Legislature it developed 

 that there were one or two enemies in 

 the bee-keepers' camp, that were send- 

 ing letters against the proposed law to 

 members of the Legislature. We have 

 in our possession one that was sent 

 out not only during the recent session 

 of the Illinois Legislature, but also 

 during the session 4 years before, 

 and also 2 years before, about the 

 only difference being, we believe, that 

 the words in italics in the second 

 paragraph of the letter were crossed 

 out, when mailing it the past winter, 

 which would indicate that it was the 

 same letter sent 2 and 4 years ago, with 

 that one exception. We don't know 

 why the names of the A. I. Root Co. 

 and J. Q. Smith were crossed off //u's 



year when mailing the letter, unless it 

 is that Mr. Smith had died within the 

 past 2 vears, and we understand the 

 Root Co. threatened to make it pretty 

 warm for those who were sending out 

 this letter if it were not discontinued. 

 But here is a copy of the letter as it 

 was sent to one of the members of the 

 Legislature last February: 



Emerson, III.. Feb. 23. i«ii. 

 Til tlfc Hoiiorahk Chairman and Members of the 

 Apl'rolniatwn Committee, State Senate. 

 Sl-riiiirnelJ. III. 



Gentlemen:— Under the proposed Foul 

 Brood law. an inspector can come into my 

 bee yard and destroy as many hives of bees 

 as he sees proper, or he can give me to un- 

 derstand it indirectly. If I do not make 

 him a little private donation he will proceed 

 to do me a great injury, and I can not pre- 

 vent him from so doing. If I try to protect 

 my property he can have me arrested and 

 fined under the proposed law. 



The prime leaders in this proposed law 

 are such men as C. P. Dadant. a large dealer 

 in beehives and supplies. //;i- A. 1. Root Com- 

 Imnv of Medina. Ohio, and J. 0- Smith, a State 

 insZ-eetor of Font Brood. 



Foul Brood has existed as long as man has 

 been keeping bees. It has been in my neigh- 

 borhood for many years, yet there are more 

 bees kept around me to-day than ever be- 

 fore. The law is for the purpose of giving 

 manufacturers a chance to sell more hives 

 and some men a job at the expense of the 

 State, as inspectors. 



Any up-to-date beekeeper can take care of 

 Foul Brood without any help from the State. 

 They sav they have the beekeepers back of 

 them. There are at present about two hun- 

 dred members in the Illinois Beekeepers' 

 Association. Of these two hundred, three- 

 fourths are honorary members— commission 

 merchants, honey dealers, beehive manu- 

 facturers, their agents and their help. 



Foul brood comes and goes like any other 

 epidemic, such as hog cholera and chicken 

 cholera. Who would think of paying a man 

 to go around and look after every old wom- 

 an's chickens ? or to every farmer who has 

 a few pigs that got sick ? If such a law goes 

 into effect I want pay for my bees the same 

 as the State gives for destroying other prop- 

 erty. I want five dollars for each and every 

 hive of bees an inspector destroys for me. I 

 have made my living by keeping bees for 

 years and I claim I know a little of what I 

 am talking about. Foul Brood will wear out 

 ten times faster than any inspector can get 

 rid of it. 



The following will show to what extremes 

 such laws can be carried: In one state they 

 have made a law that a person can keep 

 bees in only certain kinds of hives. If the 

 state does not make a law to pay the ex- 

 penses of the Foul Brood inspectors we will 

 not hear anything more about Foul Brood 

 laws. 'Very truly yours. 



W. H. H. Stewart. 



In a letter from Mr. Jas. A. Stone, 

 Secretary of the Illinois State Bee- 

 Keepers' Association, he has this to 

 say regarding the foregoing letter: 



Editor York:— This same letter came to 

 the Chairman of the Senate Committee on 

 Agriculture i years ago. and when our Legis- 

 lative Committee had been heard before the 

 same, the chairman (Senator Dunlap' said. 

 "Gentlemen of the Committee, before ac- 

 tion is taken on this bill Ithe foul brood bill]. 

 I have a letter I wish to read to the Commit- 

 tee." When the Committee had adjourned, 

 our committee asked as to the substance of 

 the letter, which was quoted to us, and our 

 president, Mr. Dadant, guessed the author 

 (J, C. Wheeler), so then we were permitted 

 to read the letter, which was in substance 

 this same letter. 



One week later, when this letter was to 

 have been read in the Committee, we had in- 

 formed Dr. Miller. Mr. York, and others, of 

 the condition, and they so flooded the Com- 

 mittee with letters, that when we went back 

 the next Tuesday to defend our interests 

 before the Committee. Senator Dunlap said, 

 "I can not call the Committee to-day— so 

 many are absent— but you need give yourself 

 no anxiety; the letter is not going to be read, 

 and we will report your bill out favorably." 

 That was the end of our trouble in the 



Two years ago this letter in substance 

 came before the House Appropriation Com- 

 mittee, and it was at so late a date when we 

 appeared to speak for our bill, that we were 

 not apprised of the letter till too late to in- 



fluence the Committee, because the chair' 

 man had read the letter to the Committee 

 and it decided them against us. 



We accused J.C.Wheeler of wntmg the 

 letter, for we recognized it as the same in 

 substance as his former letter. But the 

 chairman said no. We said that no well- 

 informed bee-keeper would write that let- 

 ter. We answered that we would know by 

 the names if they were bee-keepers, so the 

 chairman read the signed names (about a 

 dozen), and among them was the name Stew- 

 art, and if Wheeler's name was there he was 

 hidden toward the last of the list— and was 

 from the first the author of the letter, and 

 has been making cat's-pfiws of the other fel- 

 lows, so far as they were willing to be used. 

 One of these letters came to my hand, signed 

 by W. H. H. Stewart, addressed to Henry 

 Stewart, asking him to send copies of it to 

 his representatives, which he (Henry Stew- 

 art) refused to do. 



I also received a letter from one bee-man 

 who was honest enough to acknowledge his 

 sentiment— or ignorance, as you might call 

 it— for we used his letter before the Legisla- 

 tive Committee to help our cause. He said: 



"I will not circulate the petition you sent 

 me for a foul brood law. for I think a little 

 foul brood in my neighborhood cleans out 

 the bees, and gives me the whole territory: 

 but I do think a foul brood law would keep 

 diseased bees from coming in from Indiana." 



After our committee (Pres. Dadant and 

 Messrs. York. Baxter, Kildow, Pyles, Moore, 

 and myself) had been heard the past winter, 

 we never heard any more of these letters— 

 we had so thoroughly put them in the Ana- 

 nias list; and, as I said in another letter, 

 when our Bill had been delayed, the same 

 chairman on whom these fellows had tried 

 their hand, "daddied" and pushed a Bill 

 that makes their foul-broody bees worth- 

 less and condemned: so they will now have 

 to suffer on the same gallows they have 

 caused to be erected, as did Haman of old. 

 Jas. a. Stone. 



It seems, however, that another letter 

 was mailed by the same bee-keeper to a 

 member of the Legislature, as follows: 



Emerson. III.. Feb. i3. iqii. 

 I just heard of a man in Indiana who got 

 himself appointed for bees: the first thing 

 he did was to go aroqnd among his neighbors 

 and killed a lot of bees, that he might have 

 the field to himself. This shows how the 

 proposed foul brood law works. 



W. H. H. Stewart. 



Upon receiving the foregoing brief 

 letter, we sent a copy of it to Hon. 

 Benjamin W. Douglass, who is the State 

 Entomologist for Indiana, and has 

 charge of the bee-inspection work for 

 that State. The following is his reply: 



Indianapolis, Ind., Feb. 27. i«ii. 

 George W. York. 



American Bee Journal. Chicago. HI. 



Dear Sir:— \ have your letter of the 25th 

 and note your quotation from a letter re- 

 ceived by a member of your Legislature. 



The statement attributed to the Indiana 

 bee-inspector is absolutely false from start 

 to finish. I believe that I recognize the 

 source of the information in question, and 

 without going into the details of the matter, 

 I can assure you that the report is utterly 

 without foundation, and is a reflection upon 

 serious, conscientious work. No bee-keeper 

 of any repute is opposed to laws for the con- 

 trol of foul brood. We have only one or 

 two old-timers who offered any opposition 

 to the work of the Department. These men 

 are all of the backwoods type of obstruc- 

 tionists who are against anything that hap- 

 pens to be different from the methods of 

 their ancestors. The recent bee-keepers' 

 convention in Indianapolis was attended by 

 many of the most prominent men in the 

 State, and the convention unanimously en- 

 dorsed the Indiana Foul Brood law. 



In Indiana we are extremely interested in 

 the passage of a good foul brood law in your 

 State, for several reasons. In the first place, 

 it is difficult to control foul brood on the 

 borders of Indiana as long as infected ma- 

 terial is exposed just over the State line. 

 One of the worst districts is located in the 

 northwest corner of the State, and I believe 

 that much of the foul brood in this section 

 has been brought there from the immediate 

 neighborhood of Chicago. You can see. 

 therefore, why we are especially interested 

 in securing foul brood laws in the States 

 bordering Indiana. 



Respectfully. 



Benjamin W. Douglass. 

 State Entomolonist. 



