895 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



269 



the same, he could well assert the Danzenbaker 

 hive to be an infring-ement. Unfortunately for Mr. 

 Heddon, however, not being the first inventor of 

 the subject-matter set out in said claim, he had to 

 content himself with the 5th claim of the patent, 

 with its limitations to thumbscrews and cleats, and 

 he has no right to prevent others from making- 

 hives having a brood-chamber composed of two or 

 more horizontal, separable, and Interchangeable 

 sections, unless they use in connection therewith 

 the thumbscrews and cleats. 



No principle of patent law is better settled than 

 that, where an inventor in applying for a patent 

 makes a broad claim, and drops it in view of its 

 refusal by tlie Patent Office, and in its stead takes 

 a narrow claim, having limitations to a construc- 

 tion not specified in the rejected claim, he can not 

 be permitted to repudiate the limitations of his 

 narrow claim, so as to make one an infringer who 

 does not use what is specified in the claim, but 

 uses onl}' what was set forth in the claim originally 

 made and dropped because of its rejection by the 

 Patent Office. This is Heddon's position exactly. 



In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that, 

 upon neitlier legal nor moral grounds can Heddon 

 properly claim that he is entitled to stop the manu- 

 facture and sale of the Danzenbaker hive. 



Washington, D. C. C. J. Willi.4mson. 



The 5th claim of Mr. Heddon's patent, re- 

 ferred to above, reads as follows: 



In a bee-hive, a brood-chamber consisting of a 

 series of reversible and intercliangeable cases, each 

 of said cases being provided with thumb-screws ex- 

 lending through one side, and with cleats at the 

 corners of the other side and facing said thumb- 

 screws, and of a number of reversible frames rig- 

 idly secured therein between said thumbscrews 

 and cleats, and a stand and cover, substantially as 

 and for the purpose set forth. 



I have already sent for the copies of patents 

 stated by Williamson to cover the divisible- 

 brood-chamber idea: but at this date they have 

 not arrived. 



I desire to take no side in this matter, any 

 more than to give each party a fair and impar- 

 tial hearing. 



Eight extra pages as usual. 



The two-pound vs. one-pound section ques- 

 tion is very nicely answered by W. H. Putnam, 

 in his paper in the Madison convention report 

 in this issue. 



Do not forget that now is the time to dis- 

 tribute the little pamphlet on bees and fruit, 

 among neighbors who are disposed to call the 

 bees a nuisance. 



The editor of ReMew,vf hUe admitting that 

 the cutting-down of the labor item by the use 

 of labor-saving hives helps to make a success 

 of the business, says that, " if the flowers fail to 

 yield nectar, all the short cuts in the world will 

 not save us." Quite right, Bro. H. 



When a writer condemns a thing he has never 

 tried, and speaks from his own standpoint, and 

 not from that of another, and judges from his 

 own climate, and not from that of another, his 

 criticism is weak, to say the least. 



The February Apiculturist comes to hand 

 with a smiling face and a cordial good will to 

 all its sister-cotemporaries. It is largely, as are 

 the preceding numbers, made up of editorial 

 matter written in Mr. Alley's characteristic 

 style. 



The editor of the Review agrees with me in 

 thinking that Mr. Boardman is one of the 

 keenest, brightest, and most intelligent bee- 

 keepers we have. He is a man who writes but 

 little, but thinks much. He has followed the 

 bee-journals closely; and now that we have 

 succeeded in getting him to write a few articles 

 for Gleanings, I shall expect something un- 

 usually good from his pen. In this issue his 

 articles are begun again. 



Cards are beginning to come in thick and 

 fast, showing that there is a strong desire on 

 the part of our readers for the continuance of 

 the discussion, large vs. small hives. We have 

 received only one request to have it dropped. 

 So, unless the straws, or "sawlogs," point dif- 

 ferently, we will keep up the question a while 

 longer. It is a very important subject, and 

 each bee-keeper should settle it in the light of 

 the discussion brought out for his locality. 

 Upon its right solution hinges largely the 

 bread-and-butter side of bee-keeping. 



A SUBSCRIBER writes that he likes our way of 

 tiering up hives in the cellar for wintering, but 

 he wants to know how to get rid of rats and 

 mice. Our plan is none other than that used 

 and recommended by H. R. Boardman; namely, 

 piling bottomless hives, with cover sealed down, 

 one on top of two others, so as to leave a large 

 open space at the bottom. If the cellar is not 

 mouse-proof, and can not be made so, use 

 "rough on rats " or some other poison, nicely 

 concealed in one or two kinds of food, as de- 

 scribed by a correspondent recently. If there 

 are only mice, the nicest way is to use common 

 traps. 



rERCOLATOR SYRUP A SAFE WINTER FOOD. 



We fed our bees last fall in two different 

 ways. The majority of them were fed by the 

 percolator plan, and the rest with syrup made 

 in the old-fashioned way— X sugar and X 

 water, by the use of heat. Although the for- 

 mer were fed with very much less labor, and 

 with far less danger from robbers, and with no 

 heat or mussing of pans or cans, they wintered 

 just exactly as well. You see, the percolator 

 syrup is made half sugar and half water. The 

 bees receive it in a condition about as thin as 

 nectar from natural sources. They ripen it 

 thoroughly, and of course it is the best feed 



