1910 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



157 



gen if the first bee-keeper should bring his 

 ees back so that all three would be located 

 there, together with a number of other colo- 

 nies in smaller apiaries in the vicinity? 1 am 

 sure if you heard of all the complications that 

 would develop in the history of this instance 

 you would be obliged to scratch your head 

 and say, " I don't know." 



To me this is merely one of many other big 

 questions which will not be set right until 

 He will rule whose right it is to rule, and 

 who will have the power and the wisdom to 

 decide these matters justly. Bee-keeping is 

 not the only business in which there are 

 problems of this kind. Laws have been 

 framed in the effort to solve some of them, 

 but they have been dismal failuies. 



Brantford, Ontario, Can. 



OF WHAT DOES A. BEE-KEEPER'S TER- 

 RITORY CONSIST? 



BY WM. M. WHITNEY. 



My apology for this intrusion is the fear 

 that our esteemed Dr. Miller misapprehends, 

 in a measure, my meaning respecting a mat- 

 ter about which he and I entertain a differ- 

 ence of opinion. On page 41 he says: "There 

 are some good mentoo, 1 ke W. M. Whitney, 

 who think that 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." 

 Tiae doctor (lor his purpose) puts the matter 

 very ingeniously in the above statement. 



Now, I wish to make myself clearly under- 

 stood, without going into a lengthy discus- 

 sion of the question of prior rights of indi- 

 viduals to territory. I am very sorry that 

 there are even a few "good men too " like 

 Dr. Miller who think some men have the 

 rig'it to plant an apiary wherever they can 

 get enough square rods of ground for its oc- 

 cupation, wi'hout any regard to the rights of 

 the surrounding owners of the broad acres 

 which produce the flowers from which the 

 nectar is obtained. 



The doctor says: "Just keep this in mind: 

 No bee-keeper in this land has a legal right to 

 his bee territory. The fact is, he has no bee 

 territory excepting the ground his bee- hives 

 stand on." You know laws are so unconstitu- 

 tional lately that I'm at a loss to know how 

 an act could be framed that would go through 

 the courts without being made hash of. Per- 

 haps the doctor does. What I claim is, that 

 an apiarist has no moral right (and I'm quite 

 sure he'll never acquire a legal one) to the 

 exclusive use of territory. An apiarist has 

 no more moral right to the control of the sur- 

 rounding territory for the production of hon- 

 ey than has the man who starts a strawberry- 

 patch from which he hopes to supply his 

 neighbors with strawberries. Now, honest- 

 ly, has he? Both are working for the same 

 end — a living. 



If the doctor and I could join forces and 

 get up some scheme that would work, say, 

 to control the territory each way from our 



apiary the distance a bee is estimated to for- 

 age for supplies, i. e., about 2}^ miles, giv- 

 ing us a diameter of 5 miles; or, in other 

 words, a territory 15 miles in circumference, 

 we would have a cinch. Not only would we 

 control all the blossoms within our boundary, 

 but all the swarms of bees that come through 

 the air and clustered therein would be ours, 

 for no one else would have the right to hive 

 them. We might paraphrase the lines of 

 Robinson Crusoe thms: 



We are monarchs of all we survey, 

 Our rieht there is none to deny; 



From our apiary, for miles away, . 

 We are lords of the earth and the sky. 



' ' But, " says one, peering over my shoulder 

 as I write, "hold on a little bit; don't get ex- 

 cited over this matter. It may not be so big 

 a thing as you think, after all. Aren't you 

 afraid that you are planning a monopoly in 

 restraint of trade? And won't you become 

 liable to prosecution for violation of the an- 

 ti-trust law?" Hadn't thought of that. Just 

 think of two such fellows as the doctor and 

 myself and "good men too" getting into 

 such a mixup as that! The smile on the doc- 

 tor's face, "and one that never comes off," 

 might get him out of the dilemma; but I'd 

 have to go to jail sure. Td go a long way to 

 accommodate you, doctor; but the more I 

 think about this matter the more I feel like 

 shying at the whole thing. Please consider 

 me out. 



Batavia, 111. 



FOUL BROOD AND DIVISIBLE-BROOD- 

 CHAMBER HIVES. 



Can the Disease be Treated in Such Hives 

 without Handling Frames? the Bald- 

 ridge Plan. 



BY J. E. HAND. 



Mr. Editor: — I have had it in mind for some 

 time to call your attention to a particular 

 point in an editorial in Gleanings, July 1, 

 1909, page 389, on how to select a hive; but 

 the state of my health would not permit un- 

 til now. It is so seldom that one finds any 

 thing to criticise in y^ur exf^ellent editorials 

 that 1 deem it a luxury that 1 feel sure your 

 generosity will not allow you to forbid. 



From your standpoint (that of the supply- 

 dealer) I agree with you that it would not be 

 good policy for you to recommend any par- 

 ticular hive or frame to every one, for some 

 might misconstrue vour motive, even to ac- 

 cusing you wrongfully of mercenary motives. 



In the editorial mentioned, you set forth 

 in a fair and impartial manner the good 

 points of the different hives, and then calm- 

 ly and deliberately proceed to annihilate the 

 sectional hive in a most complete manner. 

 Your statement that if foul brood were like- 

 ly to break out in an apiary the sectional- 

 hive proposition would be a fright, for it is 

 not one that will permit of the handling of 

 all its frames with economy of labor, is *>quiv- 

 alent to saying that it is necessary to handle 

 all the frames in a hive in order to treat suc- 

 cessfully foul brood, which is far from the 



