1910 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



41 



General 

 Correspondence 



THE CONTROL OF BEE TERRITORY. 



At the Present Time No Bee-keeper has a 



Legal Right to his Territory; Is a 



Moral Right Sufficient? 



BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



Some time ago Mr. J. L. Byer threw out a 

 sort of challenge for me to define my posi- 

 tion with regard to the matter of occupying 

 bee-territory, with a slight intimation that 

 there was something not just rightabout my 

 position. Mr. Byer is a man whom I hold in 

 high esteem, and I should like to justify my- 

 self in his sight; but I have delayed and hes- 

 itated to reply, partly for want of time, part- 

 ly because Mr. Byer v/as just a bit vague, 

 and I didn't know just where to take hold, 

 and chiefly because I did not feel sure the 

 time was ripe for any discussion of the mat- 

 ter. 



Years ago I made the attempt to advocate 

 the idea of having such legislation as to al- 

 low each bee-keeper to have control of a cer- 

 tain territory, so far as bee-keeping is con- 

 cerned. I do not know whether any one 

 agreed with me in thought, but certainly, so 

 far as I remember, no one agreed with me in 

 word, for no one publicly agreed with me, 

 and I stood entirely alone. All who express- 

 ed themselves at all on the subject opposed 

 me, notably my good friend Prof. A. J. Cook. 



If I thought there was no change in senti- 

 ment I would not consider it worth while to 

 occupy space for a single line on the sub- 

 ject. But I know there has been change, at 

 least change as to expressing opinion. In 

 Colorado, if I am not mistaken, a rather em- 

 phatic resolution was passed to the effect 

 that a man who would encroach on territory 

 already fully occupied by another was not 

 quite what a good man should be. In the 

 Imperial Valley the bee-keepers have band- 

 ed together in making common cause against 

 such intruder in such a way as to roast him 

 out. In far-off Australia they have gone 

 perhaps to the extreme of the desired limit; 

 and a man by paying a small sum may plant 

 an apiary with the assurance that no one 

 else may locate a hive within a certain limit. 



I think there is a general belief that a man 

 occupying territory has a certain priority 

 I'ight in that territory — amoral right; but 

 with regard to a legal right there is entire 

 apathy. As nearly as I understand it, the 

 belief is that there is no need of any legal 

 right, or that if there is any such need it is 

 not possible to obtain it. I will not discuss 

 just now the latter point. But I want to re- 

 peat with all the emphasis I can command 

 what I have said so many times, that if ever 

 bee-keeping is to stand upon a firm basis 

 like other lines of business, there must be 

 such a condition of affairs that the bee-keep- 

 er shall feel just as secure against interfer- 



ence as the stock-raiser who is assured by 

 the law that his fields shall be occupied by 

 his cattle and by his alone. 



That, friend Byer, is the foundation-stone, 

 the keystone of the arch, and all the other 

 figures of speech you can imagine as to any 

 views I may hold. If you will show me I'm 

 wrong in that, I need take no time to tackle 

 any other point. And because I hope it may 

 do just a little good in bringing about the 

 day that I think will some time come, al- 

 though probably not in my time, I ask a 

 place on the stage for a while, Mr. Editor, to 

 speak my little piece. 



There are some — good men too, like W. M. 

 Whitney, who think any man has a right to 

 plant an apiary wherever he can get enough 

 square rods of ground for its occupation, 

 without any regard to surrounding bee- 

 keepers. Granting that they are right, that 

 makes it all the more important that there 

 should be some way whereby, without do- 

 ing injustice to others, I may be able to ob- 

 tain control of a certain territory, for they 

 take away all moral right, the only right that 

 any one can now claim to a given territory. 



Others, perhaps, believe heartily in prior- 

 ity rights, but think there is a strong enough 

 moral feeling in the minds of all bee-keepers 

 to make these rights respected, so that no 

 legal right is necessary. Such people need 

 to be told that these rights have not always 

 been respected in the past, and there is no 

 reason to believe that they always will be in 

 the future. If they have always been re- 

 spected, why should vigorous resolutions 

 have been passed against offenders? why 

 should Imperial Valley bee-keepers unite to 

 punish offenders? 



On page 673 Morley Pettit says that in- 

 fringing on territory so as to overstock it is 

 a boomerang. It is. Suppose a man plants 

 an apiary in a locality I already occupy fully, 

 he will suffer from the boomerang in the 

 way of failure of crops; but how about my 

 crops? Don't I suffer as much as he? And 

 is it the square thing thus to oblige me to 

 pay for his tuition? 



Very pertinently Editor Root asks, p. 674, 

 "How are we going to educate him so that 

 he will be ' wise ' enough not to locate there 

 in the first place?" Even if you could do 

 so, there's room for a whole lot of trouble. 

 If Smith has a single colony, it would hardly 

 be the fair thing for him to warn off all who 

 should want to locate within a mile or two of " 

 him. Suppose he has 10 colonies, it would 

 be much the same. Suppose he has 75, and 

 he thinks that any increase of numbers 

 would result in loss instead of gain. I think 

 differently. I think 100 colonies would find 

 support on the same ground. I plant an ad- 

 ditional 25 colonies close beside him, so as to 

 save the nectar from going to loss. If he is 

 right in his view, then he is suffering a real 

 loss from my intrusion. But who can de- 

 cide? I've been more than 40 years trying 

 to learn how many colonies my locality will 

 bear, and I don't know yet. If he had a legal 

 right to the territory, then there could be no 

 trouble. 



