1910 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



155 



tically one location that the business might 

 become unprofitable to us both. 



But it may be said again that this is not a 

 parallel case bee .use I should have pur- 

 chased the land I needed for pasture as oth- 

 er stockmen do This inequality is probably 

 not so great as it appears on firsc blush; but 

 let us take another illustration: 



There are in my little town at least seven 

 shops devoted to the sale of groceries alone, 

 comparatively few of them doing a really 

 satisfactory business; in other words the 

 territory is overstocked. Some of these 



frocers were on the ground doing business 

 efore the others appeared on the scene; 

 but I do not, however, hear any talk of 

 "priority rights" nor of "moral rights," 

 nor of invoking the law to give ihem exclu- 

 sive right to tenitory. Why do I not hear 

 these things? The need is pressing — much 

 more pressing than in the case of the busi- 

 ness of bee-keeping. 



There is one way in which one or two or 

 more could have secured the exclusive right 

 to sell groceries in this territory, and that is 

 by obligating every owner of land in the 

 district, by making a satisfactory payment, 

 not to all<iw the sa e nf groceries on his land, 

 and to bind all subsequent purchasers of the 

 land to the observance of that obligation by 

 the insertion of the requisite stipulation in 

 the deeds of sale. 



If you want to secure the exclusive right 

 to the bee-pasturage of a township, for in- 

 stance, take the course indicated as the 

 proper and effective one in the case of the 

 grocer. There is no other way. Subject to 

 the government's right of "eminent do- 

 main," he who has a fee simple in land owns 

 it clear through, from heaven above to hell 

 beneath, and you can not dispossess him of 

 the right to keep bees there, without his 

 consent, short of a constitutional revolution. 



But in the case of bee-keeping, unlike the 

 case of the grocer, there is, fortunately, no 

 such pressing need of a resort to some new 

 and unheard-of method to relieve the con- 

 gestion. With the grocer, practically all 

 choice locations are occupied; but with the 

 bee-keepers, the frontiers of ihe bee- pasture 

 are only touched as yet. There is, there- 

 fore, no present cause for alarm. There is 

 no occasion for crowding, and there will be 

 no crowding that is more than temporary, 

 for the good reason that no one prefers the 

 unprofitable to the profitable. Let us thank 

 the blessed sting and the wide pasture, and 

 be content. 



To recur to the cows, we may safely say, 

 then, that there is no good reason why "a 

 man who makes his living from bees, or part 

 of his living, should not feel just as secure 

 in his field as the man who makes his livings 

 from cows " except this: The man who keeps 

 cows is generally compelled (or at least is 

 generally willing) to purchase a right to his 

 pasture, while the man who keeps bees 

 thinks he has or ought to have a right to his 

 pasture without giving an equivalent. 



It is not so long since that stockmen un- 

 dertook to pursue their industry out west on 



the plains without securing a legal right to 

 their pasture. They did not alw ys get 

 along as swimmingly as bee-keeptrs do; but 

 I do not re call that any of them were so lost 

 to reason that they invoked the higher pow- 

 ers to grant them an exclusive right to their 

 territory without expecting to render an 

 equivalent. 



Yes, suppose Jones has found a favorable 

 locality and starts an apiary there; and I, 

 thinking the locality not suffi iently stocked, 

 "plant 50 colonies right beside him. Pretty 

 rough on Jones. " But that is not a situation 

 peculiar to apiculture, as we have already 

 seen. 



Notwithstanding the uneasiness manifest- 

 ed regarding the status of bee-keeping it 

 would be somewhat difficult to make much 

 of a list of those pursuing other occupations 

 who stand in less need or an exclusive right 

 to the ir territory, either for the production 

 or the sale of their merchandise, than does 

 the bee-keeper; and though there may be 

 so Tie who will be inclined to question the 

 validity of my suggestion that the d- sirabili- 

 ty of an exclusive right to territory for the 

 sale of a pr- duct is as important as is the ex- 

 clusive right to territory for its production, I 

 shall for the present take my position for 

 granted, and make use of one more illustra- 

 tion that may aid in the understanding of 

 the whole matter. 



Many years ago I planted several acres of 

 table grapes— the choicest kinds that can be 

 made to succeed here — sufficient to produce 

 all the grapes that my town can be made to 

 absorb profitably. Several others in my 

 neighborhood, seeing my success, and think- 

 ing there was good easy money in the busi- 

 ness, embarked in it; and, there not being 

 an outlet for the fruit, they overstocked my 

 territory. Then it became a question of the 

 survival of the fittest. Some one had to quit. 

 It was not I. 



Not to enlarge upon the theme, must we 

 not conclude that in general, as things now 

 go, the law of the survival of the fittest must 

 govern, and that bee-keeping stands on as 

 firm a basis as other lines of ousiness. even 

 having the advantage in point of stability, 

 and that every bee keeper in this land may 

 have a legal right to his territory if he is 

 willing to pay the price? 



Lapeer, Mich., Jan. 28. 



THE CONTROL OF DEE TERRITORY. 



Should a Bee-keeper have a Legal Right 



to a Territory? has he Already 



a Moral Right? 



BY R. F. HOLTERMANN. 



This subject has been taken up by Dr. Mil- 

 ler, page 41, Jan. 15, and I must confess that 

 1 admii e his courage. He has tried to defend 

 his ground by propounding some questions. 

 Now, this part of it is very easy; but on great- 

 er deliberation, possibly these questions may 

 not stand investigation. Let nxe say^ ho"w. 



